tex Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 http://www.lewrockwell.com/peters/peters8.html A man with curly black hair and olive complexion set out on his early morning run in the downtown section of a major metropolitan area. Uncertain of the fall weather, he dresses in layers, the last of which is a billowy parka. In a pack strapped to his waist is a music-playing device, with wires running from his pack to earpieces tucked almost invisibly into his ears. Toward the end of his run he is breathing heavily, his face dripping with sweat. As the music continues to play loudly in his ears, he is singing along with it. Remembering that there is a coffee shop in the nearby transit station, he turns to jog up the stairs into the station, passing police officers on the way. Before entering the shop, the man, slows to a cool-down walk, pacing back and forth to slow his breathing. He continues to listen to the music and repeat the lyrics to himself. Minutes later, a crowd gathers, as the man lays dead on the pavement, the victim of a single gunshot wound to the head, music still playing into his now blood-filled ears. What happened? Welcome to USA 2005. No, this is not a new video game. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, following a week of schooling in Israel, decided that they liked what they saw and heard enough to recommend its adoption on America’s streets. New guidelines issued by the International Association of Chiefs of Police authorize a police officer to shoot-to-kill any suspected terrorist by shooting him in the head. "You need to get him dead as soon as possible." Says Miami Police Chief John F. Timoney. (Washington Post.com, August 3, 2005). How will police identify a terrorist before they put a bullet through his head? The IACP lays down the following terrorist profile: "wearing a heavy coat or jacket in warm weather" (no definition of what constitutes a heavy coat or what is considered warm weather) "carrying a briefcase, dufflebag or backpack with protrusions or visible wires" (make sure it zips neatly shut and get Bluetooth) "might display nervousness" (take a Xanax before leaving your house) "unwillingness to make eye contact" (shyness is now punishable by death) "excessive sweating" (no definition of how much you are permitted to sweat without risking your life) "might mumble prayers" (such as praying that nobody shoots you in the head) or "pacing back and forth in front of a venue" (no definition of what constitutes pacing or what constitutes a venue). Think this scenario cannot get worse? Think again. While previous use-of-force guidelines required police officers to be faced with an imminent threat before deploying deadly force, the new guidelines eliminate this pesky threshold. "An officer just needs to have a ‘reasonable basis’ to believe that the suspect can detonate a bomb" under the new guidelines. (Washington Post.com, August 3, 2005). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dks1240 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 i can't imagine being a police officer and shooting someone in the head because i have a "reasonable basis" to believe that a suspect might detonate a bomb. ending someone's life without being even 99% sure that he/she is a terrorist...how can someone do this?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by dks1240 i can't imagine being a police officer and shooting someone in the head because i have a "reasonable basis" to believe that a suspect might detonate a bomb. ending someone's life without being even 99% sure that he/she is a terrorist...how can someone do this?? It's fiction. Nobody did this. Hey Tex, what's yer preference? Would you rather cops not try to identify terrorists? Or that there's proof positive (i.e., something blown up) before they do anything? Or do you want the police to apprehend a bomber using non lethal techniques? How many police are you willing to sacrifice that way? Those are not incindiary questions -- no more so than that article. Who the heck goes running in multiple layers of clothing in warm weather (topped with a billowing cloak) anyway? In England, the poor Brazilian was running from cops, dressed in multiple layers and looking very suspicious in the immediate aftermath of the bombings. It was tragic, yes, but understandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dks1240 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by BlueTalon It's fiction. Nobody did this. i realize it's fiction. im just saying, if the situation came up (like the innocent man shot in London), it could be very hard for police to make that final decision to kill the person when you arent 100% sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 While the man in England was NOT a terrorist. He still failed to comply with police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 When you don't listen to the police, you SHOULD get shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Showstopper Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by codeorama When you don't listen to the police, you SHOULD get shot. couldnt agree with ya more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by BlueTalon It's fiction. Nobody did this. Yea, tell that to the man who was kiled on the London subaway two weeks ago. I guess that was fiction in your world too huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 While the man in England was NOT a terrorist. He still failed to comply with police. Last I heard, failing to comply with police is not an offense punishable by death without jury. This is America, why do you hate freedom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by codeorama When you don't listen to the police, you SHOULD get shot. And if you are deaf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 If you're deaf, you dont run from the cops. I know in your liberal world, cops are bad, the US is evil and all. But dont you think from time to time people should take responsibility for their own actions. It's a simple process. If the cop tells you to stop, you stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics And if you are deaf? If the guy had been deaf, the command from the police to "STOP!" wouldn't have been a stimulus to run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by codeorama When you don't listen to the police, you SHOULD get shot. No. Cops usually arrive at a scene not knowing what the hell is going on and emotionally cold. The people involved however could be in shock, afraid, or even under the influence. Telling police to shoot people that don't listen would only result in the death of innocent people and an increase in fear of the police. Yeah it sucks having to deal with people that run or don't listen, but deadly force should be reserved for only the worst situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 It's a simple process. If the cop tells you to stop, you stop. The only thing simple is your thought process and ability to reason. If a cop tell me to stop when I'm minding my own business I'll stop. If a cop tells me to stop when I know there's a lunatic with a gun around the corner, he can kiss my ass. I'll stop when I'm safe. The problem is a cop doesn't know the difference between a bad guy and victim when he arrives on the scene. Shooting anyone that doesn't obey is a bad idea. I've flat out refused to obey cops in teh past and when it was all said and done no one ever accused me of doing anything wrong. But hey, maybe I should have let the dog rip me apart to keep from getting shot at. Because in your simplified imaginery conservative world the cop is always right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 When you refused to obey the cops, you broke the law. That they allowed you to get away with breaking the law is immaterial. Restraint should be used whenever possible, but I will not ever say the cops were wrong for acting. If an otherwise innocent man (ie the only crime is disobedience) is killed because the cops made a decision based on his actions, then HE ALONE bears the blame for those actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 If cops truly wanted to prevent terrorism, they'd get to know their communities. This just increases peoples fear of cops making cops nothing more than enforcers who work for the gangsters called government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 When you refused to obey the cops, you broke the law. That they allowed you to get away with breaking the law is immaterial. Restraint should be used whenever possible, but I will not ever say the cops were wrong for acting. If an otherwise innocent man (ie the only crime is disobedience) is killed because the cops made a decision based on his actions, then HE ALONE bears the blame for those actions. It's easy to look down from the ivory tower and say things like "hey he shouldn't have ran" while ignoring all other factors. Last I checked running while being chased isn't puishable by death....unless simplisitc idealists get their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 You're the one making it simplistic Des. It's not punishable by death. But Cops do have the duty to protect us all. I trust their judgement, why dont you? If they start shooting every person who runs from them, I'll change my view. But it seems you want to take one incident and state that it is the absolute every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
36SKINS56 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Thank god the people in this thread are reasonable. If you disobey cops you get shot. I dont care if you are a terrorist or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 You're the one making it simplistic Des. It's not punishable by death. But Cops do have the duty to protect us all. I trust their judgement, why dont you? If they start shooting every person who runs from them, I'll change my view. But it seems you want to take one incident and state that it is the absolute every time. Why don't I trust cops? Because they are human, and I know this goes against simplisitic idealism, but whenever humans are involved it is 100% certain that some of them will be bad folks. Passing laws that basically make it ok for a cop to make a bad call and kill someone who was not a threat is not something I can get behind. Saying that I'll change my mind after a whole bunch of innocent people are killed is just more ivory tower idealism.The rules are simple, deadly force is used as a response to deadly threats. It's perfect and requires no shift at all. The guy that was shot in the train station in the UK made a deadly threat. Terrorism is going on and the guy runs towards the train, thus he got shot. Sucks that he wasn't a bad guy but the cop had to act. That is worlds away from "if you run you should get shot." That is over simplification and IMO the product of arrogant ivory tower idealism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 If you're deaf, you dont run from the cops. And if you don't hear them? Too bad. I know in your liberal world, cops are bad, the US is evil and all. But dont you think from time to time people should take responsibility for their own actions. No, in my world, not a libral one BTW, the evil people are the ones ruining our freedom. You never answered my question, why do you hate freedom so much? It wasn't a joke, but a question. Obviously, you are against freedom, otherwise you'd be standing up for liberty, justice and the American way instead of some Nazi police state run by big brother. It's a simple process. If the cop tells you to stop, you stop. And if you are deaf???? How do you know the cop is telling you to stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 When you refused to obey the cops, you broke the law. That they allowed you to get away with breaking the law is immaterial. Restraint should be used whenever possible, but I will not ever say the cops were wrong for acting. If an otherwise innocent man (ie the only crime is disobedience) is killed because the cops made a decision based on his actions, then HE ALONE bears the blame for those actions. According to Kilmers world, you can be shot for speeding, shot for being deaf, scared, or completely freaked out. Why do you hate freedom and liberty? Why do you want to give law enforcement the right to shoot at will? You must agree with the SS ideology of Nazi Germany, because this is what the SS troops did. Read Destino's comments and absorb them, he is spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by Destino Why don't I trust cops? Because they are human, and I know this goes against simplisitic idealism, but whenever humans are involved it is 100% certain that some of them will be bad folks. Passing laws that basically make it ok for a cop to make a bad call and kill someone who was not a threat is not something I can get behind. Saying that I'll change my mind after a whole bunch of innocent people are killed is just more ivory tower idealism. The rules are simple, deadly force is used as a response to deadly threats. It's perfect and requires no shift at all. The guy that was shot in the train station in the UK made a deadly threat. Terrorism is going on and the guy runs towards the train, thus he got shot. Sucks that he wasn't a bad guy but the cop had to act. That is worlds away from "if you run you should get shot." That is over simplification and IMO the product of arrogant ivory tower idealism. That's been my point all along. Not "if you run you SHOULD get shot". But "If you run, you CAN get shot". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics According to Kilmers world, you can be shot for speeding, shot for being deaf, scared, or completely freaked out. Why do you hate freedom and liberty? Why do you want to give law enforcement the right to shoot at will? You must agree with the SS ideology of Nazi Germany, because this is what the SS troops did. Read Destino's comments and absorb them, he is spot on. I have, and I agreed with them. You have a problem chom. And a serious one. You think that anyone who opposes your view is an extemist. And then you take huge leaps to compare them with Nazi's the SS etc. It's sad. I have no doubt you are very bright guy. But your ability to grasp two sides of a debate is nil. People like you are responsible for the wedge driving in this country. From time to time, I truly enjoy debating you. But times like this when you come out swinging with Nazi comparison, it becomes old and tired fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 That's been my point all along. Not "if you run you SHOULD get shot". But "If you run, you CAN get shot". You are missing my point. If a cop shoots a innocent guy that is posing no threat for running, he deserves to be fired immediately and possibly jailed. Thus a rule saying "you CAN shoot him" is something I am completely and totally against because it allows bad decision making to occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.