Police shoot suspect....................er why? (page 20)

Buster

From the peanut gallery:

1. I find it almost impossible to believe that the police did not a) identify themselves AND b) order the man to stop.

2. He was in the country on a student visa? - overstayed, as a matter of fact? What kind of student, in England, for a prolonged period of time, doesn't understand the words "police" and "stop"? And what if he didn't understand them? Whose damned fault was that? That Brazilian paid for his ignorance - but it was his ignorance.

3. I'm more than a little impressed with the mentality of men that can jump on a bombing suspect. Damn nervy of them. Perhaps an inquiry will find that they deserve a parade.

(BUT if they did not identify themselves, they should be fired, those that trained them should be fired, and the department should be ashamed of themselves.)

ohiocowboy

I guess a Tazer could be used...but what kind of message does that send to potential terrorists? Go ahead, try to blow us up...we'll stun you or put you to sleep? Or if you're a little more cynical, what kind of message does it send to your own people? The decision to shoot to kill, may be more for the masses than the perps. The perps'll kill themselves anyway with suicide bombs. Thing is, the people want to feel safe...if that means popping a cap in someone's ass that runs from the cops, so be it.

The message that it would send to terrorists and others is that we value human life, even though they may not. Had the person actually been a terrorist, he could have been charged and then made to pay for his crimes. Had he actually been a terrorist, he could have been interrogated, and possibly some important information could have been gathered that would lead to other terrorist arrests. Had he actually been a terrorist, would not the other terrorists be fearful that he would give up their secrets, and possibly make them re-think their next move, rather than realize that he is dead, and can't divulge any information, thereby realizing that they are safe to carry on their next plan? Right now, the unfortunate people in Great Britain have to walk on eggshells for fear that they will be attacked by terrorists. Should they also have to walk on eggshells for fear that they may get killed by people that are supposed to be safeguarding them if they happen to be dressed different than others around them?. There are many days when it is 90 degrees plus outside, yet I will wear a long sleeve shirt, and have even been known to wear a leather duster during mid summer when there is an event going on and I want to look really spiffy wearing my duds. Should that automatically single me out as someone who is up to no good? Also, if I were to have someone or multiple persons wave a gun around me, or point it at me by men who were not wearing uniforms, my butt would be outta there. I have been robbed, with a gun to my head, and been pistol whipped by the robbers, and have a scar on the top of my head to show for it. Any gun would make me run, unless I saw It was a person in uniform with a badge. How nice of the cops to put their police hats on after the guy started running, and had his back to them. Also, why 5 bullets? Would not the first one to the head generally do the trick, rather than kill the person over and over and over and over again?

Simon

Because we are supposed to be having an objective discussion. The minute you make it personal by bringing up the subject of my family, rationality and objectivity are lost. It's easy to make personal and emotive statements - just like the tabloids who constantly scaremonger and strive to incite people's emotions. However, I believe that this board is a forum for intelligent, rational discussion which attempts to bypass the merely sensational and usually succeeds. Your argument became seriously weakened the moment you made it into a personal and hypothetical issue.

I did not 'make it personal'. I highlighted how wrong your argument was and it's clear from your responses that you realise how wrong they were because you cannot defend it to it's ultimate and logical conclusion.

How does it work Mike? Is it OK if the police kill people as long as you personally aren't related to them? Well, I'm pretty damn sure that someone is related to them and I don't have to be sherlock homes to figures out that they may be pretty pissed that they were murdered.

All you are doing now is trying to divert attention away from what you said and sidestep the issue which is this: you have no argument other than "hey, kill whoever you want, as long as it isn't me or mine that's ok".

Sorry, but to me that sucks. It is not civilised and it is not patriotic. It's handing terrorists the victory. It's giving in to WT-esque mindset of "yeah, we messed up ... but we should never be questioned or held to account".

LittleToe

~throws jello at Simon~

LT, of the "arm everyone in the whole world" class

stillajwexelder

If the identical incident had taken place in Israel, what would the outcome have been?

stillajwexelder

and very dead

undercover

The message that it would send to terrorists and others is that we value human life, even though they may not. Had the person actually been a terrorist, he could have been charged and then made to pay for his crimes. Had he actually been a terrorist, he could have been interrogated, and possibly some important information could have been gathered that would lead to other terrorist arrests. Had he actually been a terrorist, would not the other terrorists be fearful that he would give up their secrets, and possibly make them re-think their next move, rather than realize that he is dead, and can't divulge any information, thereby realizing that they are safe to carry on their next plan? Right now, the unfortunate people in Great Britain have to walk on eggshells for fear that they will be attacked by terrorists. Should they also have to walk on eggshells for fear that they may get killed by people that are supposed to be safeguarding them if they happen to be dressed different than others around them?. There are many days when it is 90 degrees plus outside, yet I will wear a long sleeve shirt, and have even been known to wear a leather duster during mid summer when there is an event going on and I want to look really spiffy wearing my duds. Should that automatically single me out as someone who is up to no good? Also, if I were to have someone or multiple persons wave a gun around me, or point it at me by men who were not wearing uniforms, my butt would be outta there. I have been robbed, with a gun to my head, and been pistol whipped by the robbers, and have a scar on the top of my head to show for it. Any gun would make me run, unless I saw It was a person in uniform with a badge. How nice of the cops to put their police hats on after the guy started running, and had his back to them. Also, why 5 bullets? Would not the first one to the head generally do the trick, rather than kill the person over and over and over and over again?

You make some valid points. It would be good to capture someone for interrogation purposes but sometimes in war you have to kill or be killed. I think maybe these cops were thinking in that mode. If they didn't immobilize the target he could set off an explosion. They were wrong, but at the time who's to know?

I also agree about singling out people base on what they are wearing or how they look. But they had followed this guy from a building that was being watched and then he ran from them when approached. While the police may have not acted 100% correct, it was a decision that had to be made without hesitation.

Like I said before we don't know all the details, probably never will. What is good is that there are people willing to step up and question the authorities. If we just all kept our mouths shut and accepted it without question, it could encourage the government to become more totalitarian.

Police shoot suspect....................er why?

Share this