Baculus Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Kilmer, the entire issue is that what was reported before, which seemed to have justified in some way his shooting, isn't quite what it seemed. And I never suggested that all police powers should be taken away from cops. In this case, it does not even appear if it was the police, as in the constables, that shot him, but this "special" unit. You mentioned criminal actions - that is the crux of this shooting, which is whether or not he was showing criminal actions, especially ones that justifies his shooting. And that goes to the heart of law enforcement and their actions against civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 Originally posted by NoCalMike Also, I thought police weren't supposed to shoot unarmed people in the back!?! Not intentionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 If you run from the cops you should get shot? Those 14 year old kids smoking pot in the parking lot better watch out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 The 14yr old kids smoking pot in the parking lot better watch out.. if 14 year olds start blowing up parking lots if they match the identity of the bomber if they are running towards the parking lot with a 20bag if they don't listen to the police telling them to stop running towards the parking lot if they are running from an area being watched on the way to the parking lot.. get it.. its not a vacuum of just 1 individual minding his own business listening to an ipod.. There is a multitude of things that lead to a catastophe listed above... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riggins44 Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 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?? How would you like to be a police office and hesitate, because not 99% sure, then he blows something up and many are killed or injured? It's a no win situation for a cop, but sign of the times. Have to agree with Code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riggins44 Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 ** double post...my bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted August 11, 2005 Author Share Posted August 11, 2005 Originally posted by BlueTalon 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. I for one want the cops to do their job. I respect them and am very glad they are on the job everyday. Without them we would have anarchy. Especially so since my wife's uncle was killed in the line of duty. But a bullet in the head based on appearances is way past the line. If the cops can preempt a suspected bomber then why not preempt others suspected of violence as well; say for instance gang bangers. For that matter why even bring suspected murders to trail? Just shoot'em in the head and call it a day. Not trying to be a wisenheimer, I guess my point is you have to draw the line on police powers somewhere and I think the line should be drawn somewhere back of the point where it’s ok for a cop to shoot a SUSPECT in the head. Sounds a little to much like "shoot them all and let God sort them out". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted August 11, 2005 Author Share Posted August 11, 2005 nm double post sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 Originally posted by tex I for one want the cops to do their job. I respect them and am very glad they are on the job everyday. Without them we would have anarchy. Especially so since my wife's uncle was killed in the line of duty. But a bullet in the head based on appearances is way past the line. If the cops can preempt a suspected bomber then why not preempt others suspected of violence as well; say for instance gang bangers. For that matter why even bring suspected murders to trail? Just shoot'em in the head and call it a day. Not trying to be a wisenheimer, I guess my point is you have to draw the line on police powers somewhere and I think the line should be drawn somewhere back of the point where it’s ok for a cop to shoot a SUSPECT in the head. Sounds a little to much like "shoot them all and let God sort them out". The England example wasn't just based on appearances, it was based on appearances + behavior + circumstances. And if gang bangers are caught in the act of murdering or raping or assaulting, the police have an obligation to the victims to stop the acts. If they refuse to stop, if they turn it into a hostage situation, if... If it means shooting them in the head, so be it. Their suspect status doesn't bother me. For cryin' out loud, news reporters could have a video of a guy blowing someone's head off, and they still call him an "alleged perpetrator" or "alleged murderer". That convict who told his wife to kill the guard, and his wife (who then killed the guard) were "alleged suspects" during the reporting of that entire fiasco. People are technically only suspects until tried and convicted. That leaves a lot of wiggle room if we're not supposed to shoot any suspects because they're only suspects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted August 17, 2005 Author Share Posted August 17, 2005 Like I said, you got to draw the line somewhere. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4157892.stm Investigators looking into how police mistook a Brazilian man for a suicide bomber and shot him, are concerned over an alleged leak of sensitive documents. The documents seem to cast doubt over the police's version of the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot dead at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July. The statements suggest Mr de Menezes had walked into Stockwell Tube station, picked up a free newspaper, walked through ticket barriers and had started to run when he saw a train arriving. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, police said Mr de Menezes had been acting suspiciously and suggested he had vaulted the ticket barriers. Police also said the Brazilian electrician had worn a large winter-style coat - but the leaked version suggested he had in fact worn a denim jacket. The leaked version said Mr de Menezes was being restrained by a community officer when he was shot by armed police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 A somewhat more sensational version of the story, from the UK, in this thread . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 But at least this guy wasn't two years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 The profile presented is ineffective. A man running to the bus and then missing it and then waiting for the next one fits the profile. If such a common occurrence fits the criteria of a terrorist, how effective of a tool to fight terrorism can it be? It can't. But that's ok.... The profile is a fabrication anyway. Ok, maybe not a total fabrication, but its is a compilation taken from two separate sources and taken completely out of context. I make that statement because of my mom. "Conceder the source!" she always said. I do and I did: In responding to the post and trying to back up my argument against the profile being used to shoot people, I decided to find the "profile" my self. I googled IACP. Went to the IACP web site. And spent a half hour searching the site for related articles... Guess what? There are none. No articles anyway. The IACP has what are called training keys. It is from two separate, keys the "profile" was compiled. One example of a miss-quote: Blog: "wearing a heavy coat or jacket in warm weather" Training Key: The wearing of heavy clothing, no matter what the season. Long coats or skirts may be used to conceal explosive belts and devices. The following are links to the Training Keys from IACP: Part one: http://www.theiacp.org/pubinfo/IACP581SuicideBombersPart1.pdf Part two: http://www.theiacp.org/pubinfo/IACP582SuicideBombersPart2.pdf Having read the training keys...I think lew Rockwell is being less than honest with us...but then again he probably got the "profile" from someone else... Is deadly force talked about? Sure is: "Lethal force is justified if the suspect represents a significant threat of death or serious injury to an officer or others." Aiming for the head of a bomber is two fold: If you shoot the bomber in the head he can not detonate the bomb. If you hit the bomber in the head and not the chest, YOU can not detonate the bomb. Deadly force and head shots are in the context of KNOWING the suspect has a bomb. Not, as Lew Rockwell reports, in the context of determining someone is a bomber. Ok..I gotta go but I think I made my point......maybe..... :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Based on the info I have heard, it was ENTIRELY his fault. I havent heard anything like what you have claimed. IE- that he didnt jump the turnstyle, turn and run when told to stop, etc. If you have that info, please share it. I'll keep an open mind. But at this point, Im basing my conclusions on the info that is out there. Well? http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109523 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLANTASKINSFAN Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics 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? But your talking about london Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.