Its hunting season....sssshhh i am hunting muslims

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 6:06 am

[QUOTE=giles337]Hows that? If he was pinned down, then it would have been nigh on impossible to reach a bomb inside his jacket; and if the bomb was on a timer, shooting him would have been pointless. This sickens me.

Another point, If I was chased by people with guns, not in uniform, I too would run, regardless of what they shouted at me; I'd be more concerned with getting away. Does this make me a terror suspect?

[/QUOTE]

Many ways exists to detonate bombs which wouldn't requier him to "reach a bomb inside his jacket."

And as for the running, then you might run from a group of armed men claming to be the police in a country where arms are rare in the population, and then run into the subway after the system has been hit by 2 rounds of bombs in a forthnight, where only luck would have it that not more people were killed by fundamentalists.
I'd still claim that it is stupid way to act if you have nothing to hide, and while tragic that one innocent died - I can still easily understand the issue.
Nobody ever said that the western world and its police force has 100% successrate each and every time. I'd still take my chances with "our" policeforce while they try to protect hundreds of innocents.
Mistakes will happen, and they will happen again as long as we are in this state of "war" with terrorist.

giles337 · Post by **giles337** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:10 am

Xandax wrote:Many ways exists to detonate bombs which wouldn't requier him to "reach a bomb inside his jacket."

I am aware of this, and it is a fair point. I guess that argument is based on how well he was "pinned down" and could be equally valid either way.

And as for the running, then you might run from a group of armed men claming to be the police in a country where arms are rare in the population, and then run into the subway after the system has been hit by 2 rounds of bombs in a forthnight, where only luck would have it that not more people were killed by fundamentalists.
I'd still claim that it is stupid way to act if you have nothing to hide, and while tragic that one innocent died - I can still easily understand the issue.
Nobody ever said that the western world and its police force has 100% successrate each and every time. I'd still take my chances with "our" policeforce while they try to protect hundreds of innocents.
Mistakes will happen, and they will happen again as long as we are in this state of "war" with terrorist.

Fact of the matter is; people chase me with guns, chances are I wouldn't listen to what they were calling out. If they'd come right up to me and identified themselves, and explained what they were doing, then I'd be more than happy to co-operate. But if they pointed guns at me and shouted, my first thought, I expect, would probably be to run. Call it stupid, call it survival instinct, call it what you will, but humans act in different ways to different situations.

I understand that mistakes will happen, but they obviously happen more often then we are lead to belive if it took the police "marks men/man" five shots, to kill a "pinned down" (and therefore, we can assume, relatively stationary) "target."

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:46 am

It is absurd that the police should be allowed to execute someone at will because they were running. If you are going to to kill someone you have to have some evidence that they are a danger to others, you can't kill on a hunch imo.

My bet is that no one gets punished for it, and if that is the case I definatly agree that this is not a individual problem, but a problem for the entire police force and the gouvernment. I don't think that attitude is silly at all, why should it be?

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:56 am

[QUOTE=giles337]<snip>
Fact of the matter is; people chase me with guns, chances are I wouldn't listen to what they were calling out. If they'd come right up to me and identified themselves, and explained what they were doing, then I'd be more than happy to co-operate. But if they pointed guns at me and shouted, my first thought, I expect, would probably be to run. Call it stupid, call it survival instinct, call it what you will, but humans act in different ways to different situations.
<snip>
[/quote]

Yes, sure - The police is going to walk up to a suspect they belive to carry a bomb, a suspect they belive is connected to two rounds of terrorist bombings, in the middle the public where many other people are at risk and explain what they were doing. That makes no sences what so ever, and expecting them to do so is very illogical in my view.
When the police call out they are the police, they are infact identifying themselves. You can then distrust the fact that this group of armed people claiming to be the police are infact the police, but come again - how often does this happen in western european countries?

[QUOTE=giles337]<snip>
I understand that mistakes will happen, but they obviously happen more often then we are lead to belive if it took the police "marks men/man" five shots, to kill a "pinned down" (and therefore, we can assume, relatively stationary) "target."[/QUOTE]

Again - it was unfortunate that this person was killed, there is no denying that but again - there is such a thing as situational judgment as well.

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:56 am

[QUOTE=Dottie]It is absurd that the police should be allowed to execute someone at will because they were running. If you are going to to kill someone you have to have some evidence that they are a danger to others, you can't kill on a hunch imo.

My bet is that no one gets punished for it, and if that is the case I definatly agree that this is not a individual problem, but a problem for the entire police force and the gouvernment. I don't think that attitude is silly at all, why should it be?[/QUOTE]

Dottie, I do agree with you. But I'm still pissed with all that, and keep thinking "what would happen if it was an English person killed by the brazilian police on these circumstances?".

Its ok to fight the terror, scotland yard, but hey, Stalinism was over USSR, years ago, and its over.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:59 am

I have to agree with Fas- the whole situation is unacceptable. Even if the police identified themselves and the suspect ran away, deadly force should be reserved for a confirmed threat. If he was held on the ground and shot, as some of the reports indicate... well that is even worse.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:07 am

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]<snip>
Even if the police identified themselves and the suspect ran away, deadly force should be reserved for a confirmed threat.<snip>[/QUOTE]

Yes - the police should wait until a couple of hundred people are blown up before acting.You can't detain a fundamentalistic person who doesn't care about his own or other peoples lives, wired with explosive by talking to him, while waiting to see if he is a confirmed threat. They (the police et al.) aren't dealing with normal sensible people here.
The police unfortunally have to act, and sadly in this case - they acted on an innocent, but whom they thought were immensly dangerous to everybody around him, and whom, again, ran away from the police calling for him to stop.

Audace · Post by **Audace** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:29 am

Accidents happen.

The tone of this thread is the most repulsive off all in my opinion.

You can't rationalize split second decisions. You can only train on them. Maybe they weren't trained well enough. Then discuss that. Maybe they did kill an innocent guy out of misplaced feelings of revenge. Then the law will take care of them.

But "Muslim hunting season"....

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:45 am

All in all, it comes down to "what truly happened there?" doesn't it? We can't accurately judge a situation without knowing that.

CM · Post by CM » Sun Jul 24, 2005 9:31 am

[QUOTE=Denethorn]That was ONE witness. Others commented that he seemed to have a belt with wires around him

. Do people have no respect for professionals? A tragic accident happens and trained officers are suddenly labelled as vile, hot headed murderers. As I say, they could be, but I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt and call this a very tragic accident.

Plus the only comment from police is that the man was not linked to the "incidents" (i.e. bombings). Not a pristine white label of innocence yet.[/QUOTE]

Actually it wasn't 1. The guardian quotes three. Yahoo news - read its third paragraphs states it was witnesses.

Now explain one thing to me if a terrorist had a bomb around his waist and the police were chasing why wouldn't he just wait and when they close blow himself up? Maximum damage and he gets to kill more people.

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.

Xandax the problem with this whole scene is that the police was wrong. He is stated by Scotland yard to have nothing to do with the bombings. They don't even comment anymore on the fact that he was in the area which is under investigation.

He was immensely dangerous? Why? I mean if he had to kill people he could have waited for the police out in the open. The last bombs used were nail bombs and they can be strapped to the a human and detonated. So if he was a terrorist he would have had waited for them and killed them with greater ease.

This is just as retard as the fact that the 3rd bomber is good and alive and is a 15 year old kid

Forget all the speculation on part of everybody here. The fact remains that he was on the ground. Pinned. When 5 bullets were added to his body as iron supplements.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:14 am

[QUOTE=CM]<snip>
Xandax the problem with this whole scene is that the police was wrong. He is stated by Scotland yard to have nothing to do with the bombings. They don't even comment anymore on the fact that he was in the area which is under investigation.

He was immensely dangerous? Why? I mean if he had to kill people he could have waited for the police out in the open. The last bombs used were nail bombs and they can be strapped to the a human and detonated. So if he was a terrorist he would have had waited for them and killed them with greater ease.<snip>
[/quote]

Nobody is saying the police wasn't wrong to kill an innocent man.
However - hindsight is 20x20. If he had blowned hundred people and the police hadn't stopped him, they would be at fault as well.
Also - I dint' say he was immensly dangerous - I said he was percived and thought to be immensly dangerous, combined with the fact he ran from the police when called, only reinforcing the belief.
Think of the situation as much as the mans religion for once.
I'm sure much of the uproar comes from the fact that it was a "muslim" (your thread title reveals).
It isn't hunting season for muslims even if you wish to portrait is as such, but for terrorists.
The fact that the english police killed an innocent man is tragic and indeed wrong - however this is what seperates us from terrorists, because "they" don't care about innocents and they don't launch investiagtions when they kill innocents by their bombs. They seemingly do it with pleasure and their supporters cheer on the sideline, and specifically target innocents.

"We" are in a state of war with these terroristgroups, and unfortunally innocents can be, and likely will be again, targeted - but "we" (the police, military etc) try to minimize it which couldn't be said in reverse. But it also means that the police is stressed and strechet out trying to protect the general public from more of these attacks.

"They" did not simply jump the first man they saw and "added 5 bullets" to him, as you seem to lay forth.
"They" called for him to stop, he ran combined with the fact that he was percived an immense threat and the police were forced to react.

Now hopefully the police forces of the western world will and can learn from this event. So lets hope some good can come of this - but I'm not emotional enough to not be able to see this situation in the light of real life events as well. And you can claim it is hunting season for "muslims" all you want, but this isn't a war of religions. So if it is "hunting season for muslims" as you say, then it is in response to and in attempt to stop the "hunting season for westerns".

Again, Hindsight is 20x20.

Kipi · Post by **Kipi** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:29 am

[QUOTE=Xandax]
It isn't hunting season for muslims even if you wish to portrait is as such, but for terrorists.
[/QUOTE]

You think so? Yes, formally it's hunting for terrorists, but actually how much it's hunting for muslims among people? Quite many thinks that muslim = terrorist, which isn't naturally true. So this whole thing is actually hunt for terrorists which has spread among innocents muslims.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:46 am

[QUOTE=Xandax]Yes - the police should wait until a couple of hundred people are blown up before acting.You can't detain a fundamentalistic person who doesn't care about his own or other peoples lives, wired with explosive by talking to him, while waiting to see if he is a confirmed threat. They (the police et al.) aren't dealing with normal sensible people here.
The police unfortunally have to act, and sadly in this case - they acted on an innocent, but whom they thought were immensly dangerous to everybody around him, and whom, again, ran away from the police calling for him to stop.[/QUOTE]
Fundamental human rights extend to all people in a society. Those rights include the right to not be shot for a crime you haven't committed. Imo, this is basic.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:09 pm

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]Fundamental human rights extend to all people in a society. Those rights include the right to not be shot for a crime you haven't committed. Imo, this is basic.[/QUOTE]

Fundamental human rights extend to the people killed by terrorists as well, and also for the people wishing to be kept safe from further attacks from these terrorists, by the police.

And - It wasn't the police sole intent to single out somebody random and kill him. It wasn't an execution as some seem to protray.

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.

arno_v · Post by **arno_v** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:26 pm

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]Fundamental human rights extend to all people in a society. Those rights include the right to not be shot for a crime you haven't committed. Imo, this is basic.[/QUOTE]

I second that. I don't know exactly what to think about all this but to me it seems the police didn't do the right thing. Even though there are numerous arguments based on the fact this was just after the bombings there and he acted suspicious by fleeing from the cops I think it's just not right what they did. As for as I know they were not in grave danger, so I see know reason why they should have killed this man (yet..)

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:48 pm

[QUOTE=arno_v]<snip> As for as I know they were not in grave danger, so I see know reason why they should have killed this man (yet..)[/QUOTE]

But all situational circumstances pointed to the fact that not only the police, but all the other people, in the tube was in grave danger. How would you have liked the police to react?
"Unfortunally" he got killed and was innocent. It is a tragedy, but I still see it as understandeble, and have heard/read nothing to indicate otherwise.

I'd really love to hear the argumentation if infact it had been a terrorist and he did manage to blow up a couple of hundred other innocent people because the police didn't act on what the information availble to them. But that is a mindgame, seeing as in this case it wasn't the situation.

The police can only react on what they know at any given time, and when in hindsight he was innocent - then it will naturally be wrong that they shot the person, but anything in hindsight is clear, and the police in the situation don't have the luxoury(sp?) that people here have.

giles337 · Post by **giles337** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:56 pm

The more I think of it, the more I realise it has the potential for a complete paradigm shift, and can be viewed either way. Xan's right though, if he HAD gone on to kill hundreds of people, everyone would ask, why didn't the police shoot? The question remains though, why did it take five shots to kill a supressed "target"?

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:58 pm

Admittedly, I find it hard to understand why five bullets to his head was deemed "necessary" but I do wonder if the police had shot the guy in the leg to disable him, and he had subsequently died of blood loss, whether attitudes towards any police "motive" might be different. The police were forced into making a split second decision, the what ifs had they been right and not reacted do not bear thinking about. Sadly, another innocent died because of maljudgement, but what if they were right and had not reacted? Another 20 might have died because someone did not have the courage of their convictions. Remember, we are not a gun happy nation, our regular police officers do not carry firearms and for this I am thankful...but considering the circumstances I think we need to keep this in perspective; he left a house under surveillance, he bolted when challenged, and he appeared to be possibly wearing a bomb belt - he was a perceived threat. I just hope the authorities address this issue with the sensitivity it demands, but do not make a scapegoat of the officers. If they do, every police officer in the UK might as well hand in their firearms license.

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:04 pm

[QUOTE=CM]Ysh read the article, Scotland yard said he was not connected in anyway to the bombers. So i am seriously doubting if he even came out of the house. First he is asian. Then he is seen coming out of the house. Now he has not connection whatsoever.

BBC has editted its link once again but there was a quote from Scotland Yard in there that he was not related in anyway to the bombings.[/QUOTE]

Fas, I did read the article. I live in the London area, it is hard to avoid the news and stupid to ignore it.

The conversation has moved on since this post, now we know for a fact he was not Asian, so let's be wary of screaming xenophobia.

First he was seen exiting a house under surveillance - regardless of skin colour. As I said in my previous post to you - one of the first four suicide bombers was not Asian.

I don't appreciate the tone of this thread - as lead by the title.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:27 pm

[QUOTE=giles337]<snip> The question remains though, why did it take five shots to kill a supressed "target"?[/QUOTE]

It does so because the police of Britain (as many other european police forces) uses "low verlocity bullets" meant to stop and not kill. So this means that when you "shoot to kill", you automatically have to shoot more then once. You don't shoot once when you shoot to kill, and then wait to see if it has impact. You shoot multiple times at first.

The reason it was shots towards the head is because it isn't excatly "smart" to shoot towards the body if you suspect the target has explosives strapped to the body. Also - shots to the body (or arms/legs) aren't as instantanious lethal combined with the bullettype as other areas of the body.

As for the "supressed", then it wasn't executions as in the "Vietnam neckshot/Gangster style" style people seem to portray. All this goes on in the split of a second.