http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711769.stm
A debate on the "shoot to kill" issue.
Note, for what it is worth, that the UK sought guidance from countries who have experience of suicide bombers. Not that the UK police should be naive enough to jump off a cliff if told to do so, but it (the advise given) does point out quite clearly how other Governments deal with apprehended potentials...
Its hunting season....sssshhh i am hunting muslims
-
Yshania
- Posts: 8572
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Some Girls Wander By Mistake
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]I disagree, that's cold blood murder, and it is intentional murder. I shoot once to stop the guy, and after that, I'm denying his right to live. Its the first bullet to stop, the second to kill, the others to ultimately say "he cant breathe". Its execution.[/QUOTE]
As I said in a previous post - if they had shot him once in the leg, and he had bled to death, would the arguement remain?
As I said in a previous post - if they had shot him once in the leg, and he had bled to death, would the arguement remain?
Parachute for sale, like new! Never opened!
Guinness, black goes with everything.
Guinness, black goes with everything.
@Luis I'd like to see you be cold blooded if you suddenly decided (or were possibly told ??) that the man was a terrorist, furthermore is heading for a packed train station?
As Xandax pointed out shooting the torso of a man who was (originally thought to be) strapped with explosives is not really an option. And others have mentioned low velocity or damage bullets.
And this is all based on eyewitness account? This does need investigation, but I don't think it can be at all labelled as murder. Atleast not at this stage. To call the officer a murderer is outright ridiculous.
You never shoot to stop. It is always to kill. Plain and simple. I have said 5 shots to the head was overkill (quite literally). Traditional professional firearms training involves two shots to the torso and one to the head to seal the deal so to speak.I shoot once to stop
As Xandax pointed out shooting the torso of a man who was (originally thought to be) strapped with explosives is not really an option. And others have mentioned low velocity or damage bullets.
And this is all based on eyewitness account? This does need investigation, but I don't think it can be at all labelled as murder. Atleast not at this stage. To call the officer a murderer is outright ridiculous.
"I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!"
-
Luis Antonio
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: In the home of the demoted.
- Contact:
It is known that an aleatory shoot on the brain might cause spasms post mortem that will move muscles, except on the back areas of the brain, cutting the motion comunication sistem. An aleatory shooting on the head is not a good option, since suicide bombers usually keep their activation devices close to the hands. Also, the two shots policy was unknown by me, but that'd be expected.
Anyway, I see that the public opinion on England if either it was too brutal or not is divided. Interesting.
@ Denethorn, people walk with packs to the train station all day long. If you shoot any suspect carrying a bag, you'll have a cematery, or a slaughterhouse, not a tube.
Anyway, I see that the public opinion on England if either it was too brutal or not is divided. Interesting.
@ Denethorn, people walk with packs to the train station all day long. If you shoot any suspect carrying a bag, you'll have a cematery, or a slaughterhouse, not a tube.
Flesh to stone ain't permanent, it seems.
Denethorn i was not painting the police as a racist entity. What i am saying is the use of extreme force was based on certain assumptions. The fact that he looked Asian and had a coat on lead the police to believe that he was a terrorist correct? If a white man wearing a coat would run from the police would you consider him a suicide bomber?
I am not ignoring the fact that he ran into a subway station. What i am saying is that he was pinned down when he was shot 5 times. That i have serious issues with. Why the hell was he shot 5 times?
My issue is with the fact that he was killed and now the London police chief says it may happen again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4712061.stm
I mean is this the message you want to give minorities? Well we are sorry but hey it can happen again.
To make the 16 year old comment clear. There were 4 bombers. 3 were pakistanis. One of the 3 pakistanis that was idenitified as a terrorist and having visited Pakistan is still alive. He is a 16 year old kid in UK. He is living there right now. The man who was a terrorist and blew himself up is not the same person who visited Pakistan.
They have the same name but did not visit Pakistan. The news artcile was big news in Pakistan. It was a Pakistani journalist who broke the news and he held two interviews on the matter. All arab news papers covered it. The BBC covered it after three days and it was a small news item.
Here is the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4704427.stm
I am not ignoring the fact that he ran into a subway station. What i am saying is that he was pinned down when he was shot 5 times. That i have serious issues with. Why the hell was he shot 5 times?
My issue is with the fact that he was killed and now the London police chief says it may happen again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4712061.stm
I mean is this the message you want to give minorities? Well we are sorry but hey it can happen again.
To make the 16 year old comment clear. There were 4 bombers. 3 were pakistanis. One of the 3 pakistanis that was idenitified as a terrorist and having visited Pakistan is still alive. He is a 16 year old kid in UK. He is living there right now. The man who was a terrorist and blew himself up is not the same person who visited Pakistan.
They have the same name but did not visit Pakistan. The news artcile was big news in Pakistan. It was a Pakistani journalist who broke the news and he held two interviews on the matter. All arab news papers covered it. The BBC covered it after three days and it was a small news item.
Here is the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4704427.stm
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
[QUOTE=Yshania]As I said in a previous post - if they had shot him once in the leg, and he had bled to death, would the arguement remain?[/QUOTE]
No. Why? Because the aim was not to kill him. 5 bullets to the head and torso - there is only one final outcome.
No. Why? Because the aim was not to kill him. 5 bullets to the head and torso - there is only one final outcome.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
-
Luis Antonio
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: In the home of the demoted.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Yshania]As I said in a previous post - if they had shot him once in the leg, and he had bled to death, would the arguement remain?[/QUOTE]
If he was stopped and interrogated or at least the intention of the police officers was to stop him to check his disposition to activate an explosive device the outcome would be different. They have him no chance to defend himself. If he was a drug dealer, lets say. His crime is another, he could be running because he had 7 kilos of pot on his pack. How can the policeman know? What if he had just pickpocketed someone? Or robbed a house? Or if he was just an illegal immigrant? People dream on going to Europe/Us and making money to return and have better lifes in many countries in the world. That may be delusional, but it happens.
If he was stopped and interrogated or at least the intention of the police officers was to stop him to check his disposition to activate an explosive device the outcome would be different. They have him no chance to defend himself. If he was a drug dealer, lets say. His crime is another, he could be running because he had 7 kilos of pot on his pack. How can the policeman know? What if he had just pickpocketed someone? Or robbed a house? Or if he was just an illegal immigrant? People dream on going to Europe/Us and making money to return and have better lifes in many countries in the world. That may be delusional, but it happens.
Flesh to stone ain't permanent, it seems.
[QUOTE=CM]No. Why? Because the aim was not to kill him. 5 bullets to the head and torso - there is only one final outcome.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=CM]
But at the end of the day both violate human rights and national laws. Murder is murder.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=CM]
Denethorn how is plugging 5 bullets into a guys head when he is on the ground an accident. By that same logic road side bombs in Iraq aimed for the US army are tragic accidents as well.[/QUOTE]
CM, you should seriously consider reading a law book once in a while before you start using arguments involving it. Ever heard of "shoot to kill" and why it exists? Know anything about police training? Know the difference between murder and manslaughter, self-defence, mitigating circumstances and the like? And please do not use the international treaty argument again. Why do you wanna involve Iraq? "If this is a tragic accident then road side bombs in Iraq are tragic accidents as well"... Get some sense of perspective in your arguments...
[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]
A new, legalized, Ku Klux Kan (sp?).[/QUOTE]
Seriously, what is up with the mods in this forum lately?
[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]
Racial problems exist, Fas, not only because he was muslim. He could have been only Latin, he'd have tons more chance to be spanked or arrested under no charge, just for being unable to reply to the cops.[/QUOTE]
He spoke english fine as you should well know. Can we now all just wait for the investigation before we start all these conspiracy theories? Maybe we can involve a few UFO's and the free-masons in here as well....
[QUOTE=CM]
But at the end of the day both violate human rights and national laws. Murder is murder.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=CM]
Denethorn how is plugging 5 bullets into a guys head when he is on the ground an accident. By that same logic road side bombs in Iraq aimed for the US army are tragic accidents as well.[/QUOTE]
CM, you should seriously consider reading a law book once in a while before you start using arguments involving it. Ever heard of "shoot to kill" and why it exists? Know anything about police training? Know the difference between murder and manslaughter, self-defence, mitigating circumstances and the like? And please do not use the international treaty argument again. Why do you wanna involve Iraq? "If this is a tragic accident then road side bombs in Iraq are tragic accidents as well"... Get some sense of perspective in your arguments...
[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]
A new, legalized, Ku Klux Kan (sp?).[/QUOTE]
Seriously, what is up with the mods in this forum lately?
[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]
Racial problems exist, Fas, not only because he was muslim. He could have been only Latin, he'd have tons more chance to be spanked or arrested under no charge, just for being unable to reply to the cops.[/QUOTE]
He spoke english fine as you should well know. Can we now all just wait for the investigation before we start all these conspiracy theories? Maybe we can involve a few UFO's and the free-masons in here as well....
"Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas"
-
Cuchulain82
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:44 pm
- Location: Law School library, Vermont, USA
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Xandax]His death was an event of circumstances, where he was percived to be a dangerous suicide terrorist who was jepordising many other innocents, combined with the fact that he ran away from armed policeofficers identifing themselves. I still think it is a shame he was killed, but I have absolutly no problem understanding the situation. It is real life, with real life people on the end. I also have sympathy for the policeofficer(s) shooting this innocent person, because next time in a crisis they might hesitate one moment to long, which could mean disaster.[/QUOTE]
Xandax, I understand your point, and I'm glad I don't have to make the decisions that police officers do. I understand their predicament as much as anyone can who isn't in the same situation. Would I want the police to do the same in my city? I don't know, but another terrorist attack in New York is an awful thought. Does that make the shooting right? No. Like Fas said, murder is murder.
Considering all that, the test of a nation is how it treats it's worst citizens. Human rights are just that- rights. They don't go away to protect a majority or to calm an ego. This isn't just some idealist line of hooey either- this is what makes societies work. Everyone, no matter skin color or circumstance, has the right to innocence until there is a reasonalbe suspicion otherwise. Imo, shooting someone five times because they ran away is excessive use of force.
As for real people and real life- come to New York. It's a place where everyone is trying to figure out how to live with the threat of terrorism.
Xandax, I understand your point, and I'm glad I don't have to make the decisions that police officers do. I understand their predicament as much as anyone can who isn't in the same situation. Would I want the police to do the same in my city? I don't know, but another terrorist attack in New York is an awful thought. Does that make the shooting right? No. Like Fas said, murder is murder.
Considering all that, the test of a nation is how it treats it's worst citizens. Human rights are just that- rights. They don't go away to protect a majority or to calm an ego. This isn't just some idealist line of hooey either- this is what makes societies work. Everyone, no matter skin color or circumstance, has the right to innocence until there is a reasonalbe suspicion otherwise. Imo, shooting someone five times because they ran away is excessive use of force.
As for real people and real life- come to New York. It's a place where everyone is trying to figure out how to live with the threat of terrorism.
Custodia legis
[QUOTE=CM]If a white man wearing a coat would run from the police would you consider him a suicide bomber?[/QUOTE]
No. In a (much earlier) post I agreed with you on this. Let me get the wording on this right: members of ethnic minorities are to blame for the terrorist attacks, correct? One in a million, insane/misguided members of ethnic minorities.
I am aware that white muslims do exist
I have met them. Unfortunately a white man has not yet been seen to be involved with Al Qaeda or this series of terrorist attacks. And I personally have not heard of a white suicide bomber. Attack via suicide is simply not part of the white culture. The Japanese used suicide planes, and now misguided religious fundamentalists see it as an efficient method of attack.
From all this it is understandable that people will be more wary/suspicious of "asian looking men" - especially those that leave observed houses towards a station.
I say understandably since I live in an especially multi-cultural area, and I personally do not feel more threatened by the asian community. If I were closer to the bombings I might, forgive me for saying so - but it is a natural reaction.
To be honest I was suprised at the lack of a reaction people in my area had towards the bombings of London. I was on holiday (in Islamic Turkish Republic Of Northern Cyprus) when the bombings occured. Thanks to satellite TV in the bar I was made aware of the incident(s). Birmingham (which I live very close to) was also under thread/shut down etc. I return and ask of the fortnight's goings on - noone mentioned London bombings or Birmingham being closed off
Not to say people don't care, I was simply trying to point out that there hasn't been a rapid nationalist movement across Britain. With vigilantes and police hunting for muslims in long coats and baseball caps.
However close to the threat, xenophobia and suspicion can be more understandable.
No. In a (much earlier) post I agreed with you on this. Let me get the wording on this right: members of ethnic minorities are to blame for the terrorist attacks, correct? One in a million, insane/misguided members of ethnic minorities.
I am aware that white muslims do exist
I have met them. Unfortunately a white man has not yet been seen to be involved with Al Qaeda or this series of terrorist attacks. And I personally have not heard of a white suicide bomber. Attack via suicide is simply not part of the white culture. The Japanese used suicide planes, and now misguided religious fundamentalists see it as an efficient method of attack.From all this it is understandable that people will be more wary/suspicious of "asian looking men" - especially those that leave observed houses towards a station.
I say understandably since I live in an especially multi-cultural area, and I personally do not feel more threatened by the asian community. If I were closer to the bombings I might, forgive me for saying so - but it is a natural reaction.
To be honest I was suprised at the lack of a reaction people in my area had towards the bombings of London. I was on holiday (in Islamic Turkish Republic Of Northern Cyprus) when the bombings occured. Thanks to satellite TV in the bar I was made aware of the incident(s). Birmingham (which I live very close to) was also under thread/shut down etc. I return and ask of the fortnight's goings on - noone mentioned London bombings or Birmingham being closed off
Not to say people don't care, I was simply trying to point out that there hasn't been a rapid nationalist movement across Britain. With vigilantes and police hunting for muslims in long coats and baseball caps.
However close to the threat, xenophobia and suspicion can be more understandable.
"I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!"
-
Yshania
- Posts: 8572
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Some Girls Wander By Mistake
- Contact:
I am not sure what conclusions you have drawn, but it would be interesting to know.Luis Antonio wrote:Anyway, I see that the public opinion on England if either it was too brutal or not is divided. Interesting.
@ Denethorn, people walk with packs to the train station all day long. If you shoot any suspect carrying a bag, you'll have a cematery, or a slaughterhouse, not a tube.
Fas, that poor lad must have been terrified! He lives not too far from me lol!
That was a rhetorical question, as was asking would people have been as upset if he was white...No. Why? Because the aim was not to kill him. 5 bullets to the head and torso - there is only one final outcome.
Luis, it may be delusional, but on average I doubt it. For the most part immigrants have been welcomed into this country, and provided for where necessary. Fair enough. But the vast majority contribute highly to this countrys economy, and particularly in business and in the health service. London is one huge melting pot, and the particular suburb I live in is heavily Asian, and I love it here. I am not wandering down the streets looking suspiciously at my neighbours, I am spending time and money in authentic shops, enjoying the riches of diversity with real people just like myself, who have a dream - however localised - to get on and live a happy and fulfilled life.
Tragedies such as the bombings, the shooting of an innocent man, and the subsequent pointing of fingers can only serve to divide and separate, and this would be a travesty. Yes we should mourn an innocent lost, but we should not claim race hatred where relationships may already be tested.
What I have taken offence to has been the outrage following the shooting of a dark-skinned man...where we should be outraged he was innocent regardless of his colour or creed.
As the arguement here is that the British police are tarring every "Asian" with one brush, so are the "minorities" claiming racism.
I am sad this young man lost his life, whatever the circumstances turn out to be, we are living in an environment where we cannot afford to take risks. And one major risk will be cries of racism.
Parachute for sale, like new! Never opened!
Guinness, black goes with everything.
Guinness, black goes with everything.
-
Luis Antonio
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: In the home of the demoted.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Audace]
Seriously, what is up with the mods in this forum lately?
He spoke english fine as you should well know. Can we now all just wait for the investigation before we start all these conspiracy theories? Maybe we can involve a few UFO's and the free-masons in here as well....[/QUOTE]
@ Audace: Are you implying I cant express my opinion? I'm not advertizing the KKK, I'm doing exactly the opposite. Now, if you dont want to discuss, ok. Just dont start this UFO thing, that looks far more like trolling to me than the KKK being mentioned. And its spam.
@Ysh: That IS the point. London is a melting point. Now why do it sounds to me a lot like it was a decision based on "he's a foreigner"? That's what I mean. You dont heal socio-economic problems, people immigrate, make London become a "melting point" and terrorist bombings happen. Then, it seems, the first targets the police chases are the foreigners. And one of them has five bullets on his head/upper torso. Accident? Racism? What? See that I dont mean all english people are like that. But it seems to me that even the Justice department is not really regreting that.
Now regarding my thoughts about the divided opinions, I've just seen on brazilian news that there are manifestations and people asking that the policemen involved be arrested. (Btw, if any of you read this, thanks, even though its a short term solution, it shows how worried the country is) Arresting them is not the proper solution, it demands time and research.
Edit - oh, I dont mean England does not welcome foreigners, but it is known how xenophobians European people can be. Notice, they can be. I dont mean they are xenophobians. Please.
Seriously, what is up with the mods in this forum lately?
He spoke english fine as you should well know. Can we now all just wait for the investigation before we start all these conspiracy theories? Maybe we can involve a few UFO's and the free-masons in here as well....[/QUOTE]
@ Audace: Are you implying I cant express my opinion? I'm not advertizing the KKK, I'm doing exactly the opposite. Now, if you dont want to discuss, ok. Just dont start this UFO thing, that looks far more like trolling to me than the KKK being mentioned. And its spam.
@Ysh: That IS the point. London is a melting point. Now why do it sounds to me a lot like it was a decision based on "he's a foreigner"? That's what I mean. You dont heal socio-economic problems, people immigrate, make London become a "melting point" and terrorist bombings happen. Then, it seems, the first targets the police chases are the foreigners. And one of them has five bullets on his head/upper torso. Accident? Racism? What? See that I dont mean all english people are like that. But it seems to me that even the Justice department is not really regreting that.
Now regarding my thoughts about the divided opinions, I've just seen on brazilian news that there are manifestations and people asking that the policemen involved be arrested. (Btw, if any of you read this, thanks, even though its a short term solution, it shows how worried the country is) Arresting them is not the proper solution, it demands time and research.
Edit - oh, I dont mean England does not welcome foreigners, but it is known how xenophobians European people can be. Notice, they can be. I dont mean they are xenophobians. Please.
Flesh to stone ain't permanent, it seems.
[QUOTE=Audace]CM, you should seriously consider reading a law book once in a while before you start using arguments involving it. Ever heard of "shoot to kill" and why it exists? Know anything about police training? Know the difference between murder and manslaughter, self-defence, mitigating circumstances and the like? And please do not use the international treaty argument again. Why do you wanna involve Iraq? "If this is a tragic accident then road side bombs in Iraq are tragic accidents as well"... Get some sense of perspective in your arguments...
Seriously, what is up with the mods in this forum lately?
He spoke english fine as you should well know. Can we now all just wait for the investigation before we start all these conspiracy theories? Maybe we can involve a few UFO's and the free-masons in here as well....[/QUOTE]
Audace firstly we are mods of the gaming forums. We are not accountable to anybody for our personal opinions and the ability to practice our god given right to freedom of speech. As always if you have a problem please take it up with Buck.
Audace shoot to kill is not a legal principle. It is something Hollywood coined. Why don't you tell me what the difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder is? Because 5 bullets to the head is first degree. The example was to illustrate the absurdity of both claims, mine and the other in question.
I also want to make a point or two on the general way of things. I have a serious issue with gunning someone down in the middle of the street or tube without any proof. To kill a man is wrong. Doesn't matter if he is white, black, blue, pink or indigo. I am not accusing the police of a hate crime. I am saying they used racial profiling to track the guy. That is perfectly fine after all muslims are responsible for the first bombs. But that does not give the police to shoot a guy full of holes.
I have a serious issue with the manner in which it was done and the way the British govt is finding this as an acceptable situation. The Mayor of London had no problem with it neither did a minister or two. The Police chief said it could happen again.
Shooting a man dead is never acceptible. If he is innocent it is worse. This sends a very bad message to the minorities.
I can understand why they thought it. But come on killing a guy is not acceptible. Call it as it is Dene. I have no problem with it. People of my race, nation and religion are responsible. Do use racial profiling, if it means saving lives i have no problem with it. But don't shoot people dead because you fear something.
Seriously, what is up with the mods in this forum lately?
He spoke english fine as you should well know. Can we now all just wait for the investigation before we start all these conspiracy theories? Maybe we can involve a few UFO's and the free-masons in here as well....[/QUOTE]
Audace firstly we are mods of the gaming forums. We are not accountable to anybody for our personal opinions and the ability to practice our god given right to freedom of speech. As always if you have a problem please take it up with Buck.
Audace shoot to kill is not a legal principle. It is something Hollywood coined. Why don't you tell me what the difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder is? Because 5 bullets to the head is first degree. The example was to illustrate the absurdity of both claims, mine and the other in question.
I also want to make a point or two on the general way of things. I have a serious issue with gunning someone down in the middle of the street or tube without any proof. To kill a man is wrong. Doesn't matter if he is white, black, blue, pink or indigo. I am not accusing the police of a hate crime. I am saying they used racial profiling to track the guy. That is perfectly fine after all muslims are responsible for the first bombs. But that does not give the police to shoot a guy full of holes.
I have a serious issue with the manner in which it was done and the way the British govt is finding this as an acceptable situation. The Mayor of London had no problem with it neither did a minister or two. The Police chief said it could happen again.
Shooting a man dead is never acceptible. If he is innocent it is worse. This sends a very bad message to the minorities.
I can understand why they thought it. But come on killing a guy is not acceptible. Call it as it is Dene. I have no problem with it. People of my race, nation and religion are responsible. Do use racial profiling, if it means saving lives i have no problem with it. But don't shoot people dead because you fear something.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
This is utterly ridiculous now.
[QUOTE=CM]Basically you are saying if the police call you to stop and you run away from them that gives them a reason to shoot you 5 times. Does the same apply for all regions. Because i know for a fact if this happened in Pakistan the British media would be on a feeding frenzy of epic proportions.
The police shot a guy five times because of what? He ran away? Or that he was brown skinned and he ran away?[/QUOTE]
My post got ignored apparently. Have you ever dealt with police in a sitaution where they required you to stop and pulled a gun on you? I have. Have you ever witnessed a situation where they've pulled a gun and fired at a suspect?
Two police, just two, fired 5 rounds between them in the space of less than 3 seconds at a fleeing white male in my sight just this year because he ran from them. He was carrying a knife and selling drugs. They told him to stop, he turned and ran the other way. Lucky for the person, either he was incredibly evasive or they were poor shots and none hit him.
Those police officers were trained to shoot, and aim to kill. They fire off bursts, not single shots. If, there were a group of officers who decided to open fire on a subject, it would easily be expected to end up with at least double their number of bullets being fired if they were trained with the same standards as the local police in NY. Now, granted, 5 bullets going into a man on the ground is excessive. All it takes is 3 men to fire off 1-2 shots a person at the same time to accomplish that.
Keeping that in mind...
1. Young male leaves house which is suspected of harboring a terrorist cell.
2. Young male is wearing a "suspicious outfit", which very well could hide a weapon or bomb.
3. Young male is told to halt by police who identify themselves, then runs. Not just anywhere, but directly towards the train station.
4. The train station in London had been bombed very recently and was the reason the police were there and watching the house he had just left.
5. When in an area, you are expected to:
A- obey the local laws
B- Know the local laws
C- Understand the local language
Given all of this, a man fleeing from police who identified themselves after watching this man leave a house suspected of harboring terrorists. He heads to a place which was just bombed, wearing clothing capable of hiding another bomb. He refused to stay still and answer questions, but ran directly toward the area which was subjected to a terrorist attack within days of this incident.
If I had been in that situation, and I ran after him, and saw that he was getting away, or resisting arrest, I would put him down. That would be my job.
I don't agree with the end result, but realistically this "innocent brazilian" broke the law and fled from police in a very suspicious situation. If it had been my neighborhood, and I had done the same, I know they would have opened fire on me too.
This wasn't a case of a young minority running from a store on shop lifting charge, it was a case of national security, they did their job, with terrible and unfortunate results. I cannot see how race plays into that. I don't say that from the aspect of wanting to ignore a problem, I've dealt with the problem. I refuse to see members of my own family because of racism. I pushed away a girl I loved because of her views on black people, saying I couldn't stand being with her because of them.
However, just as wanting equality for men and women, and all different colors, bad things happen too. I get discriminated against, and I'm white. Is that right? No, and do I complain? Yes. I don't like it, and it's all because of my appearance that cops pull me over when I go outside. I fit the visual profile of a young male looking to cause trouble. I get hassled, just like a lot of black and hispanic people do. If I ran from the police in this neighborhood, I'd be fired upon if the police thought I had a weapon or means to harm someone else. That, is reality, not racism.
Proof is not needed in certain situations. Reasonable circumstances piling up add to what judgements are made. If this man was wearing tight shorts and a t-shirt, clearly not able to hide something dangerous on him, chances are he wouldn't have been shot at. If this man had NOT ran from police, he wouldn't have been killed. The error there goes more than one way. This all would have been very different if this young man had held his ground and answered questions. Whatever his reasoning for running, it was flawed, just as the police made a terrible accident in killing someone who was innocent. He DID break the law, at least the law here by running from police officers though. "Questionable suspect" becomes "suspect resisting arrest" in that situation.
They use progressive force when a targeted suspect runs. If it had been a young man who had stolen something running away, they probably would have simply chased him down. Running away with a bottle of liqour, or candy, or clothes is far, far different from suspected bomber. Someone suspected of running down into a train station while hiding a bomb, the officers probably thought this person was trying to run into the train to detonate a bomb he had on his person and did their best to subdue him.
Not that it at all is right, yet the young man did a very stupid thing, which ended up encouraging the belief he was indeed guilty rather than staying and talking to the police. I would expect police officers to fire on me if I had been that person, which is why I would never have ran in that kind of situation.
Also, I don't know how it is in Britain, or other parts of the world. The reality of the situation here though, there's more American citizen's here that are shifting towards wanting to do something radical against our government than people here visiting from other countries, that I know of personally at least. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see violent situations of the sort against government personel soon in the states if things don't change.
[QUOTE=CM]Basically you are saying if the police call you to stop and you run away from them that gives them a reason to shoot you 5 times. Does the same apply for all regions. Because i know for a fact if this happened in Pakistan the British media would be on a feeding frenzy of epic proportions.
The police shot a guy five times because of what? He ran away? Or that he was brown skinned and he ran away?[/QUOTE]
My post got ignored apparently. Have you ever dealt with police in a sitaution where they required you to stop and pulled a gun on you? I have. Have you ever witnessed a situation where they've pulled a gun and fired at a suspect?
Two police, just two, fired 5 rounds between them in the space of less than 3 seconds at a fleeing white male in my sight just this year because he ran from them. He was carrying a knife and selling drugs. They told him to stop, he turned and ran the other way. Lucky for the person, either he was incredibly evasive or they were poor shots and none hit him.
Those police officers were trained to shoot, and aim to kill. They fire off bursts, not single shots. If, there were a group of officers who decided to open fire on a subject, it would easily be expected to end up with at least double their number of bullets being fired if they were trained with the same standards as the local police in NY. Now, granted, 5 bullets going into a man on the ground is excessive. All it takes is 3 men to fire off 1-2 shots a person at the same time to accomplish that.
Keeping that in mind...
1. Young male leaves house which is suspected of harboring a terrorist cell.
2. Young male is wearing a "suspicious outfit", which very well could hide a weapon or bomb.
3. Young male is told to halt by police who identify themselves, then runs. Not just anywhere, but directly towards the train station.
4. The train station in London had been bombed very recently and was the reason the police were there and watching the house he had just left.
5. When in an area, you are expected to:
A- obey the local laws
B- Know the local laws
C- Understand the local language
Given all of this, a man fleeing from police who identified themselves after watching this man leave a house suspected of harboring terrorists. He heads to a place which was just bombed, wearing clothing capable of hiding another bomb. He refused to stay still and answer questions, but ran directly toward the area which was subjected to a terrorist attack within days of this incident.
If I had been in that situation, and I ran after him, and saw that he was getting away, or resisting arrest, I would put him down. That would be my job.
I don't agree with the end result, but realistically this "innocent brazilian" broke the law and fled from police in a very suspicious situation. If it had been my neighborhood, and I had done the same, I know they would have opened fire on me too.
This wasn't a case of a young minority running from a store on shop lifting charge, it was a case of national security, they did their job, with terrible and unfortunate results. I cannot see how race plays into that. I don't say that from the aspect of wanting to ignore a problem, I've dealt with the problem. I refuse to see members of my own family because of racism. I pushed away a girl I loved because of her views on black people, saying I couldn't stand being with her because of them.
However, just as wanting equality for men and women, and all different colors, bad things happen too. I get discriminated against, and I'm white. Is that right? No, and do I complain? Yes. I don't like it, and it's all because of my appearance that cops pull me over when I go outside. I fit the visual profile of a young male looking to cause trouble. I get hassled, just like a lot of black and hispanic people do. If I ran from the police in this neighborhood, I'd be fired upon if the police thought I had a weapon or means to harm someone else. That, is reality, not racism.
Proof is not needed in certain situations. Reasonable circumstances piling up add to what judgements are made. If this man was wearing tight shorts and a t-shirt, clearly not able to hide something dangerous on him, chances are he wouldn't have been shot at. If this man had NOT ran from police, he wouldn't have been killed. The error there goes more than one way. This all would have been very different if this young man had held his ground and answered questions. Whatever his reasoning for running, it was flawed, just as the police made a terrible accident in killing someone who was innocent. He DID break the law, at least the law here by running from police officers though. "Questionable suspect" becomes "suspect resisting arrest" in that situation.
They use progressive force when a targeted suspect runs. If it had been a young man who had stolen something running away, they probably would have simply chased him down. Running away with a bottle of liqour, or candy, or clothes is far, far different from suspected bomber. Someone suspected of running down into a train station while hiding a bomb, the officers probably thought this person was trying to run into the train to detonate a bomb he had on his person and did their best to subdue him.
Not that it at all is right, yet the young man did a very stupid thing, which ended up encouraging the belief he was indeed guilty rather than staying and talking to the police. I would expect police officers to fire on me if I had been that person, which is why I would never have ran in that kind of situation.
Also, I don't know how it is in Britain, or other parts of the world. The reality of the situation here though, there's more American citizen's here that are shifting towards wanting to do something radical against our government than people here visiting from other countries, that I know of personally at least. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see violent situations of the sort against government personel soon in the states if things don't change.
"You can do whatever you want to me."
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
-
Bloodstalker
- Posts: 15512
- Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Hell if I know
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]
Edit - oh, I dont mean England does not welcome foreigners, but it is known how xenophobians European people can be. Notice, they can be. I dont mean they are xenophobians. Please.[/QUOTE]
It is also known, as you put it, that American people are brash and arrogant to the extreme in their views of the world, Japanese people are a vastly intelligent people with an unhealthy obsession with carrying cameras and snapping pictures of everything everywhere they go, South American people are basically just an entire continent of drug lords or poor, illitereate folk wandering around half naked all the time, and Canadians are those crazy people who run around spouting words like "Eh" all the time. What does that have to do with anything?
These are all assumptions, and even as you have indicated in the above quote, it means nothing. Simply because these generalizations can be true in a few instances does not mean that they are as you have said yourself, and I think this is the main problem with the way certain aspects of this discussion are being presented.
I've read through the thread, and it just seems to me that certain assumptions are being made as to the motive the police had for this shooting. Racism or some kind of xenophobia is being targeted as a prime reason for this tragedy in quite a few arguments without any basis in fact.
The fact is that no one knows for sure what was going on in the minds of the officers or the victim involved at the time of the shooting Anything you can say about motive is purely speculation. It's all it can be unless you have a mindlink with the people involved.
I'm not saying that I think this incident was acceptable or excusable. All I'm saying is that it seems to me that the focus is being largely attributted to one factor, racism, without taking the time to consider any alternate motives. If you want to be outraged, by all means, be outraged. There certainly seems to be more than enough reason to be in this case, but it should revolve around the fact, as Ysh has stated, that an apparently innocent man was killed by mistake, not that a brown, black, red, or white man was killed. Not until all the facts come to light and a real investigation provides an insight into the actual circumstances and motives involved.
These things happen suddenly, and with very little time to do much besides react to the situation at hand.Could it have been racially motivated? Absolutly, the same as it could have been a misapplication of training, someone incorrectly assesing the situation in the heat of the moment, lapse in judgement, confusion under the circumstances, or just simple basic human error.
The fact is, the police are the same as any other profession out there. No one is perfect, and the best training in the world does not guarranttee that tragedies like this will not happen. there is too much room in the human psyche for error to ever eliminate the chance of things like this happening. The sad part is that in such fields, a mistake in judgement can have a more terrible outcome than other profession simply due to the nature of the job.
So I say wait and see what an investigation turns up. The facts as they stand are not enough to state that this man was shot due to his nationality. the fact remains that he was leaving a site that was under surveliance, refused to heed the warnings of the police to stop, and was headed for a populated area. That is more than enough cause for suspicion in the eyes of law enforecment officials who have to worry about staying alive themselves as well as containing any threat before it moves into an area that puts more people at risk. That said, the five shots fired does seem excesive, but could indicate anything from a percieved threat to simply anger and adrenaline from having to chase a suspect without it having to be simply race related.
As to the Dept. not seeming to treat it as a big deal, that's the normal procedure as far as I've seen from police organizations while conducting investigations into the acts of their officers. There won't be much said about it beyond the expressed regret until an investigation sheds light on the situation. they are not, and should not IMO, just stand and villianise the officers involved before they gather the facts and come to a conclusion on the matter internally. Does that imply a cover up? Not necessatilry, it implies that they want to have all the facts before taking a difeinitive public stance on the matter. If the officers involved are shown to be grossly negligent in their actions or that they killed the person without suitable cause, I belive they will be prosecuted as they should be and as have other officers before them in other situations.
Edit - oh, I dont mean England does not welcome foreigners, but it is known how xenophobians European people can be. Notice, they can be. I dont mean they are xenophobians. Please.[/QUOTE]
It is also known, as you put it, that American people are brash and arrogant to the extreme in their views of the world, Japanese people are a vastly intelligent people with an unhealthy obsession with carrying cameras and snapping pictures of everything everywhere they go, South American people are basically just an entire continent of drug lords or poor, illitereate folk wandering around half naked all the time, and Canadians are those crazy people who run around spouting words like "Eh" all the time. What does that have to do with anything?
These are all assumptions, and even as you have indicated in the above quote, it means nothing. Simply because these generalizations can be true in a few instances does not mean that they are as you have said yourself, and I think this is the main problem with the way certain aspects of this discussion are being presented.
I've read through the thread, and it just seems to me that certain assumptions are being made as to the motive the police had for this shooting. Racism or some kind of xenophobia is being targeted as a prime reason for this tragedy in quite a few arguments without any basis in fact.
The fact is that no one knows for sure what was going on in the minds of the officers or the victim involved at the time of the shooting Anything you can say about motive is purely speculation. It's all it can be unless you have a mindlink with the people involved.
I'm not saying that I think this incident was acceptable or excusable. All I'm saying is that it seems to me that the focus is being largely attributted to one factor, racism, without taking the time to consider any alternate motives. If you want to be outraged, by all means, be outraged. There certainly seems to be more than enough reason to be in this case, but it should revolve around the fact, as Ysh has stated, that an apparently innocent man was killed by mistake, not that a brown, black, red, or white man was killed. Not until all the facts come to light and a real investigation provides an insight into the actual circumstances and motives involved.
These things happen suddenly, and with very little time to do much besides react to the situation at hand.Could it have been racially motivated? Absolutly, the same as it could have been a misapplication of training, someone incorrectly assesing the situation in the heat of the moment, lapse in judgement, confusion under the circumstances, or just simple basic human error.
The fact is, the police are the same as any other profession out there. No one is perfect, and the best training in the world does not guarranttee that tragedies like this will not happen. there is too much room in the human psyche for error to ever eliminate the chance of things like this happening. The sad part is that in such fields, a mistake in judgement can have a more terrible outcome than other profession simply due to the nature of the job.
So I say wait and see what an investigation turns up. The facts as they stand are not enough to state that this man was shot due to his nationality. the fact remains that he was leaving a site that was under surveliance, refused to heed the warnings of the police to stop, and was headed for a populated area. That is more than enough cause for suspicion in the eyes of law enforecment officials who have to worry about staying alive themselves as well as containing any threat before it moves into an area that puts more people at risk. That said, the five shots fired does seem excesive, but could indicate anything from a percieved threat to simply anger and adrenaline from having to chase a suspect without it having to be simply race related.
As to the Dept. not seeming to treat it as a big deal, that's the normal procedure as far as I've seen from police organizations while conducting investigations into the acts of their officers. There won't be much said about it beyond the expressed regret until an investigation sheds light on the situation. they are not, and should not IMO, just stand and villianise the officers involved before they gather the facts and come to a conclusion on the matter internally. Does that imply a cover up? Not necessatilry, it implies that they want to have all the facts before taking a difeinitive public stance on the matter. If the officers involved are shown to be grossly negligent in their actions or that they killed the person without suitable cause, I belive they will be prosecuted as they should be and as have other officers before them in other situations.
Lord of Lurkers
Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!
Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!
-
Bloodstalker
- Posts: 15512
- Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Hell if I know
- Contact:
[QUOTE=CM]
Audace shoot to kill is not a legal principle. It is something Hollywood coined. Why don't you tell me what the difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder is? Because 5 bullets to the head is first degree. The example was to illustrate the absurdity of both claims, mine and the other in question.
muslims are responsible for the first bombs. But that does not give the police to shoot a guy full of holes.
[/QUOTE]
I took two years of law enforcement in college before switching major (Due to me being too lazy to think of myself running down fleeing suspects ) and the question came up repeatedlt over when it is acceptable to use force and how much of it to use. Shoot to Kill is not a simple hollywood coined phrase, it's a very real concept, and is to be employed in any cases involving a fleeing suspect when there is a reasonable cause to believe that the suspect in question is armed, dangerous, and resisting arrest, so long as the use of such force does not further endanger civillians, in other words, you have a clear and open shot. Any suspect that can reasonablly be presumed to present a danger to the public of the officer at large is in a position to be shot. And it is discouraged to shoot for an arm or a leg due to a couple reasons.
1. An injured armed suspect is still a danger to anyone in the area, and as likely to return fire or try to obtain a hostage as he is to lay down and give up.
2. Shots to any area such as the legs or arms on a moving suspect are much more likely to miss the intended target and result in increased possiblity of civillians being injured by stray shots fired. Aiming for the body area is much more likely to result in a hit and eliminate the danger to the public as it's a wider target and harder to miss.
I'm not sure of course what they tell officers anywhere else, but this is what they tell you in the US. You never fire a weapon at anyone under any circumstances unless that person is considered a danger to yourself or others, and at that point, you fire to put eliminate the threat as quickly as possible.
While I'm not a legal mind, I believe that the main thing that classifies 1st degree murder is a willful and premeditated planning of the killing beforehand. Under such a classification, it doesn't matter how many bullets are fired or where they hit.Legally speaking, the murder must have been thought out and executed in a way that shows premeditation for it to be classified 1st degree murder.
Audace shoot to kill is not a legal principle. It is something Hollywood coined. Why don't you tell me what the difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder is? Because 5 bullets to the head is first degree. The example was to illustrate the absurdity of both claims, mine and the other in question.
muslims are responsible for the first bombs. But that does not give the police to shoot a guy full of holes.
[/QUOTE]
I took two years of law enforcement in college before switching major (Due to me being too lazy to think of myself running down fleeing suspects
) and the question came up repeatedlt over when it is acceptable to use force and how much of it to use. Shoot to Kill is not a simple hollywood coined phrase, it's a very real concept, and is to be employed in any cases involving a fleeing suspect when there is a reasonable cause to believe that the suspect in question is armed, dangerous, and resisting arrest, so long as the use of such force does not further endanger civillians, in other words, you have a clear and open shot. Any suspect that can reasonablly be presumed to present a danger to the public of the officer at large is in a position to be shot. And it is discouraged to shoot for an arm or a leg due to a couple reasons.1. An injured armed suspect is still a danger to anyone in the area, and as likely to return fire or try to obtain a hostage as he is to lay down and give up.
2. Shots to any area such as the legs or arms on a moving suspect are much more likely to miss the intended target and result in increased possiblity of civillians being injured by stray shots fired. Aiming for the body area is much more likely to result in a hit and eliminate the danger to the public as it's a wider target and harder to miss.
I'm not sure of course what they tell officers anywhere else, but this is what they tell you in the US. You never fire a weapon at anyone under any circumstances unless that person is considered a danger to yourself or others, and at that point, you fire to put eliminate the threat as quickly as possible.
While I'm not a legal mind, I believe that the main thing that classifies 1st degree murder is a willful and premeditated planning of the killing beforehand. Under such a classification, it doesn't matter how many bullets are fired or where they hit.Legally speaking, the murder must have been thought out and executed in a way that shows premeditation for it to be classified 1st degree murder.
Lord of Lurkers
Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!
Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!
Firearms are lethal weapons - make no mistake, a firearm is lethal - and are legally carried by law enforcement officers who are legally empowered to utilize the lethal force of a firearm when circumstances warrant. With that out of the way - the use of lethal force by law enforcement officers is indeed a legal activity - some law enforcement agencies have attempted to explore alternatives to the use of lethal force in potentially dangerous situations. Technology has produced such things as stun guns and taser guns, which are effective to a degree. Application of a certain amount of direct current (DC) to the human body is sufficient to incapacitate the average suspect...but as experience has shown in the field, not all suspects are "average". In some cases, the non-lethal force ends up being lethal, and in other cases, it is not sufficient to stop a suspect. More research and testing needs to be done in this area before something satisfactory is arrived at that the majority of law enforcement agencies are comfortable relying on.
In answer to CM from my first post in this thread: that's a patently ridiculous question to pose, and one I'm not even going to begin answering. My first post explains how I feel on this subject adequately enough, I think.
In answer to CM from my first post in this thread: that's a patently ridiculous question to pose, and one I'm not even going to begin answering. My first post explains how I feel on this subject adequately enough, I think.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
[QUOTE=CM]Audace firstly we are mods of the gaming forums. We are not accountable to anybody for our personal opinions and the ability to practice our god given right to freedom of speech. As always if you have a problem please take it up with Buck.
<snip>[/QUOTE]
Actually - and somewhat OT - but you don't have a "God given right to freedom of speech" in this private property of Buck. You have the rights of freedom of speech that he gives you.
As for the rest of this thread, then it is getting so pathetic so I don't really feel like debating this issue anymore.
Fact of the matter is there was a person (doesn't matter what race he is @CM) was killed because he was thought to be a terrorist - and yes, "white" terrorists exists as well, and would have been killed as well.
Unfortunally he was innocent. But it wasn't murder.
And it isn't a legalized KKK (@Luis) hunting the streets filled with racist cops only waiting to find a latin american person to beat up/kill or a muslim to frame the terroract on.
I'm out of this thread, before it degenerates further.
<snip>[/QUOTE]
Actually - and somewhat OT - but you don't have a "God given right to freedom of speech" in this private property of Buck. You have the rights of freedom of speech that he gives you.
As for the rest of this thread, then it is getting so pathetic so I don't really feel like debating this issue anymore.
Fact of the matter is there was a person (doesn't matter what race he is @CM) was killed because he was thought to be a terrorist - and yes, "white" terrorists exists as well, and would have been killed as well.
Unfortunally he was innocent. But it wasn't murder.
And it isn't a legalized KKK (@Luis) hunting the streets filled with racist cops only waiting to find a latin american person to beat up/kill or a muslim to frame the terroract on.
I'm out of this thread, before it degenerates further.
Insert signature here.
Let's all roleplay for a bit as it's something we all like to do.
You're a plainclothes cop in a city at high alert because of recent bombings at train stations that have killed dozens of innocent civilians and with two of your comrades find a possible suspect, wearing a large coat that could very well be housing bombs (judging by the bulk of it), leaving an area that was known to be the bombers' HQ. He heads to the train station and you follow. Finally, you muster the courage to reveal yourself as a member of the police, only to have him unexpectedly start running from you!
He's going into a crowded area, what happens if he really is a suicide bomber? There are innocent people, who have no idea what are happening in there. People around you begin to panic, have some of them realized what's going on? Who knows what the guy is? Is he a bomber? Why is this happening to you? You hope you don't get hurt. You've got children at home who would like to see you when you get home. You pray that he's innocent, but as you begin to run, as your muscles ache, you really don't know what to think anymore. All you know is fatigue and fear, fear and a desire to catch what could be a running bomb. Around you, more washes through everyone including yourself as you rush by. If only he wasn't running and you could talk, but you're breath grows thin...
He's running, he could hurt someone, he could hurt people that are loved, he could hurt someone you know and he may very well take you with him. Still he runs, you can feel the adrenaline surge through your body as you close in. Your comrades are by your side and they're scared too. They understand the gravity of the situation, they're just as scared and clueless as you. You've got to save these people any way you can, what happens if there's a disaster and YOU'RE responsible for it? What happens if, because you didn't act fast enough, dozens more die? Is he innocent? Why would he run if he was? Why would he fear you if he was? If he was wired to blow, running into that crowd could spell more victims to a miniature siege. If he wasn't, why would he be running? Why couldn't you know exactly what was happening? Why must YOU make the decision that could haunt you for the rest of your life? Why, oh why did you choose this job? To serve and PROTECT.
There's a mother and her child over there. An old man in a wheelchair. Lovers stare at you and hold eachother tight, wondering what the commotion's about. There's all sorts of people. Young people. Old people. Happy people. INNOCENT people. And then there's the man in front of you, running with his big jacket that might house the death of all these people. You have a means to stop him and possibly save many. That means? A gun. You've been entrusted to keep peace and security and prevent another tragedy. What do you do? All this has happened in a mere 30 seconds and could end in the blink of an eye. What do you do? What in God's name do you do?
[/end roleplay]
You people do realize that these police officers are screwed for the rest of their lives right? They have to live, knowing they killed an innocent person. They have to live with the dishonor that comes with FAILING in their duty, because they made a mistake. They failed the person that they killed and they KNOW it.
How would you feel, if your mistakes cost a life? It's so damn easy to say 'oh they were trained, they shouldn't have made such a dumb mistake'. Think to yourself, how would you act? Can you hit a man's leg while nearly pissing your pants on the run? Or can you subdue him and finish the job. Or can you do neither, because you're not a cop? Do your mistakes cost people lives? Are you responsible for keeping an entire city safe? Ask yourself that and then count the number of professional mistakes you've made. Now wonder what would happen if those mistakes were LIVES. Oh, don't feel so good anymore. Well, that's how these men will probably feel, except tenfold. [sarcasm] Oh but they're racists and bastards and stupid so they wouldn't care [/sarcasm]
Of all things, you choose to VILLIFY people who are scarred for eternity. People will HATE them and SCORN them because they made a mistake in a high stakes job. People will ALWAYS QUESTION their INTEGRITY. They will be judged for a brutal mistake and will likely be out of a job. How does this sound on a resume? I killed an innocent man in my previous job. Hire me please, my kids need to eat. Not good eh?
Have we all forgotten what it's like to be human? These men will take arrows like all these for the rest of their lives. People in jail will take less abuse for their crimes. What would you do if someone called you a legal KKK? How would you feel, knowing that you can't do anything about it because your mistake put you into that position. How would you feel if someone called you xenophobic, when you were merely trying to do your job?
I'm not out to flame anyone. I just think it's pointless to start villifying human beings without knowing who they really are. How can I call a man evil before I even know him? I cannot judge one who I do not know.
"How easy it is to be critical and not correct." I don't remember who said that. But I think it's something we should all take into consideration.
You're a plainclothes cop in a city at high alert because of recent bombings at train stations that have killed dozens of innocent civilians and with two of your comrades find a possible suspect, wearing a large coat that could very well be housing bombs (judging by the bulk of it), leaving an area that was known to be the bombers' HQ. He heads to the train station and you follow. Finally, you muster the courage to reveal yourself as a member of the police, only to have him unexpectedly start running from you!
He's going into a crowded area, what happens if he really is a suicide bomber? There are innocent people, who have no idea what are happening in there. People around you begin to panic, have some of them realized what's going on? Who knows what the guy is? Is he a bomber? Why is this happening to you? You hope you don't get hurt. You've got children at home who would like to see you when you get home. You pray that he's innocent, but as you begin to run, as your muscles ache, you really don't know what to think anymore. All you know is fatigue and fear, fear and a desire to catch what could be a running bomb. Around you, more washes through everyone including yourself as you rush by. If only he wasn't running and you could talk, but you're breath grows thin...
He's running, he could hurt someone, he could hurt people that are loved, he could hurt someone you know and he may very well take you with him. Still he runs, you can feel the adrenaline surge through your body as you close in. Your comrades are by your side and they're scared too. They understand the gravity of the situation, they're just as scared and clueless as you. You've got to save these people any way you can, what happens if there's a disaster and YOU'RE responsible for it? What happens if, because you didn't act fast enough, dozens more die? Is he innocent? Why would he run if he was? Why would he fear you if he was? If he was wired to blow, running into that crowd could spell more victims to a miniature siege. If he wasn't, why would he be running? Why couldn't you know exactly what was happening? Why must YOU make the decision that could haunt you for the rest of your life? Why, oh why did you choose this job? To serve and PROTECT.
There's a mother and her child over there. An old man in a wheelchair. Lovers stare at you and hold eachother tight, wondering what the commotion's about. There's all sorts of people. Young people. Old people. Happy people. INNOCENT people. And then there's the man in front of you, running with his big jacket that might house the death of all these people. You have a means to stop him and possibly save many. That means? A gun. You've been entrusted to keep peace and security and prevent another tragedy. What do you do? All this has happened in a mere 30 seconds and could end in the blink of an eye. What do you do? What in God's name do you do?
[/end roleplay]
You people do realize that these police officers are screwed for the rest of their lives right? They have to live, knowing they killed an innocent person. They have to live with the dishonor that comes with FAILING in their duty, because they made a mistake. They failed the person that they killed and they KNOW it.
How would you feel, if your mistakes cost a life? It's so damn easy to say 'oh they were trained, they shouldn't have made such a dumb mistake'. Think to yourself, how would you act? Can you hit a man's leg while nearly pissing your pants on the run? Or can you subdue him and finish the job. Or can you do neither, because you're not a cop? Do your mistakes cost people lives? Are you responsible for keeping an entire city safe? Ask yourself that and then count the number of professional mistakes you've made. Now wonder what would happen if those mistakes were LIVES. Oh, don't feel so good anymore. Well, that's how these men will probably feel, except tenfold. [sarcasm] Oh but they're racists and bastards and stupid so they wouldn't care [/sarcasm]
Of all things, you choose to VILLIFY people who are scarred for eternity. People will HATE them and SCORN them because they made a mistake in a high stakes job. People will ALWAYS QUESTION their INTEGRITY. They will be judged for a brutal mistake and will likely be out of a job. How does this sound on a resume? I killed an innocent man in my previous job. Hire me please, my kids need to eat. Not good eh?
Have we all forgotten what it's like to be human? These men will take arrows like all these for the rest of their lives. People in jail will take less abuse for their crimes. What would you do if someone called you a legal KKK? How would you feel, knowing that you can't do anything about it because your mistake put you into that position. How would you feel if someone called you xenophobic, when you were merely trying to do your job?
I'm not out to flame anyone. I just think it's pointless to start villifying human beings without knowing who they really are. How can I call a man evil before I even know him? I cannot judge one who I do not know.
"How easy it is to be critical and not correct." I don't remember who said that. But I think it's something we should all take into consideration.
"It's not whether you get knocked down, it's if you get back up."
This is a lose-lose situation for the police.
They shot the wrong person who didn't have a bomb, but it could easily have been different.
If the police had done nothing then a bomb could have been set off killing many more.
If the police thought more about their actions the same could have happened.
Such a situation requires split-second reactions.
They shot the wrong person who didn't have a bomb, but it could easily have been different.
If the police had done nothing then a bomb could have been set off killing many more.
If the police thought more about their actions the same could have happened.
Such a situation requires split-second reactions.