Mohammed B., the ruthless assassin of Theo v. Gogh, is currently in the process of being judged by the court of law. He does not speak and his lawyer isn't allowed to either.
Mr. B. shot V. Gogh off his bike, cleaved into the victim's throat with a sword and pinned a note to the lifeless body using a small knife. Then, he waited for the cops to show up to make him a martyr. But the policemen didn't know what to do with this armed criminal, except praying to not get hit.
There are special anti-terror units and arrestation teams for this kind of things, but the regular cop is only trained to apprehend fleeing criminals or maintain order at the crimescene, not to deal with a man that waits for them to show up, while waving a gun around.
The reluctance to shoot an obvious threat, I think, comes from quite recent events. About a year or two ago, a police-officer shot a Moroccan or a Turk (Can't exactly remember). The victim was threatening the officer with a knife, but the officer got a trial and the victim a silent march.
Later, a soldier in Iraq shot an approaching Iraqi. After a warningshot without result, he shot at the ground near a group of Iraqis who were getting close to the convoy that the soldier had to defend. One man was killed. The soldier was taken to court.
On both incidents, the order-maintainers thought they did the right thing by firing their gun.
It could be the reason why police-officers now don't know what to do with the most dangerous criminals of all: the ones that aren't afraid to fight.
Dutch cops: Sissies
Dutch cops: Sissies
[size=-1]An optimist is a badly informed pessimist.[/size]
@ ik911 I hear ya, at home we (mostly my parents though) followed these events closely and think it doesn't make any sense.
Everytime my dad watches the news he's complaining and grumbling things like "Oh, ofcourse you're gonna get a trial when defending yourself, like if I hit a burglar with a club the poor "lost" man is to be compensated, hrrmpf!"
Everytime my dad watches the news he's complaining and grumbling things like "Oh, ofcourse you're gonna get a trial when defending yourself, like if I hit a burglar with a club the poor "lost" man is to be compensated, hrrmpf!"
Do you need a silencer if you're gonna shoot a mime?
[QUOTE=arno_v]It maybe the lack of sleep I had during the last week, but I don't see your point. What is it you want to tell us. I'll have a look at this later since I have to go now.[/QUOTE]
Time pressure... And lack of sleep on my side too.
1. I find it worrying that they cannot protect us against those criminals.
2. Should he be shot instantly or must he be arrested and convicted by court?
3. Would you shoot the criminal? Would you shoot the enemy? Are you capable of killing another person? Or an animal? Could you kill a cow? Have we become too humane and civilized to kill?
Let's take it from here. Don't spam too much.
Time pressure... And lack of sleep on my side too.
1. I find it worrying that they cannot protect us against those criminals.
2. Should he be shot instantly or must he be arrested and convicted by court?
3. Would you shoot the criminal? Would you shoot the enemy? Are you capable of killing another person? Or an animal? Could you kill a cow? Have we become too humane and civilized to kill?
Let's take it from here. Don't spam too much.
[size=-1]An optimist is a badly informed pessimist.[/size]
1 A lot of policemen in Holland are a little inexperienced in these things because this quite simply doesn't happen that much here in Holland.
2 DUDE! He should be arrested and convicted by court obviously! I for one am very pleased that Mohammed B failed in his attempt at Martyrdom.
3 Yet again, DUDE! Since when does shooting someone automatically mean killing them! You can just shoot him in the leg or something, as long as he isn't a threat anymore.
2 DUDE! He should be arrested and convicted by court obviously! I for one am very pleased that Mohammed B failed in his attempt at Martyrdom.
3 Yet again, DUDE! Since when does shooting someone automatically mean killing them! You can just shoot him in the leg or something, as long as he isn't a threat anymore.
I'm so serious it's comical!
I think it sounds alot better than the situation in Sweden, where the cops are notoriously trigger happy. Especially in regard of imigrants and drug abusers. There have been a number of events where the police have felt so thretened by fleeing people that they have felt they need to shoot them. There are also a number of incidents where drug abusers have been suffocated to death upon apprehension. Personally I'm all for taking away most regular cops guns. Perhaps they can get them back when they have learned to use them responsibly.
While others climb the mountains High, beneath the tree I love to lie
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
[QUOTE=Melchiah]3 Yet again, DUDE! Since when does shooting someone automatically mean killing them! You can just shoot him in the leg or something, as long as he isn't a threat anymore.[/QUOTE]
Again, In sweden it usally does. Partly because the extra vicious penis enlarging ammunition they use, and partly because they simply aren't skilled enough to aim at limbs.
Again, In sweden it usally does. Partly because the extra vicious penis enlarging ammunition they use, and partly because they simply aren't skilled enough to aim at limbs.
While others climb the mountains High, beneath the tree I love to lie
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
1. I do not find it worrying, because I don't think there is a big chance of us getting shot down by an armed criminal. Another point is that I do think Dutch cops have enough expertise to handle situations like you illustrated.
2. He should be shot down or even better be kicked to death by and angry mob... No he should be taken to court of course. What do you want, back to the dark ages?
3. I think it's right to shoot a criminal if it's the choice between you and him. If it's a life threathening situation it could be right to shoot a criminal, but best thing to do would be to shoot him in limbs or other not fatal parts of the body. On the other hand, would I shoot a criminal? I don't know I think this is a situation were one can't predict in what way he/she will act.
I don't think we have became to civilized to kill. I think people can do things they can't imagine right now. Like for instance in war people can act totally different than you would expect. It's just because of some mind numbing effect things can have on your brain I guess. You just have to get used to it, than you can do almost everything I think.
2. He should be shot down or even better be kicked to death by and angry mob... No he should be taken to court of course. What do you want, back to the dark ages?
3. I think it's right to shoot a criminal if it's the choice between you and him. If it's a life threathening situation it could be right to shoot a criminal, but best thing to do would be to shoot him in limbs or other not fatal parts of the body. On the other hand, would I shoot a criminal? I don't know I think this is a situation were one can't predict in what way he/she will act.
I don't think we have became to civilized to kill. I think people can do things they can't imagine right now. Like for instance in war people can act totally different than you would expect. It's just because of some mind numbing effect things can have on your brain I guess. You just have to get used to it, than you can do almost everything I think.
-
Fiona
-
Vicsun
- Posts: 4547
- Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2000 12:00 pm
- Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
- Contact:
1. I find it worrying that they cannot protect us against those criminals.
The job of the police isn't to protect. It is to apprehend those who have already committed a crime. The police only acts after a crime has been committed - the only reason someone can be arrested for plotting a murder is because plotting a murder is a crime in itself which the criminal has committed before he can be arrested.
If you want protection, hire a bodyguard.
2. Should he be shot instantly or must he be arrested and convicted by court?
Unless you think the police is capable of playing the role of a judge, jury, and executioner, I think it's pretty clear a conviction of court is generally a good idea.
3. Would you shoot the criminal? Would you shoot the enemy? Are you capable of killing another person? Or an animal? Could you kill a cow? Have we become too humane and civilized to kill?
If I were a police officer, and my life was threatened, I'd think I'd shoot without batting an eyelash or losing any sleep the following night. Realistically though, who knows? Not really having experienced death first hand, it's hard to say how able I'd be at taking a life even under extreme circumstances.
The job of the police isn't to protect. It is to apprehend those who have already committed a crime. The police only acts after a crime has been committed - the only reason someone can be arrested for plotting a murder is because plotting a murder is a crime in itself which the criminal has committed before he can be arrested.
If you want protection, hire a bodyguard.
2. Should he be shot instantly or must he be arrested and convicted by court?
Unless you think the police is capable of playing the role of a judge, jury, and executioner, I think it's pretty clear a conviction of court is generally a good idea.
3. Would you shoot the criminal? Would you shoot the enemy? Are you capable of killing another person? Or an animal? Could you kill a cow? Have we become too humane and civilized to kill?
If I were a police officer, and my life was threatened, I'd think I'd shoot without batting an eyelash or losing any sleep the following night. Realistically though, who knows? Not really having experienced death first hand, it's hard to say how able I'd be at taking a life even under extreme circumstances.
Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person. ~Chanak
[QUOTE=arno_v]1. I do not find it worrying, because I don't think there is a big chance of us getting shot down by an armed criminal. Another point is that I do think Dutch cops have enough expertise to handle situations like you illustrated.[/QUOTE]
No, you're absolutely right. And we might as well cancel all lung-cancer research too, because we both don't smoke so there's little chance we die because of that... Oh, that was ironical.
The Mohammed B situation illustrated that Dutch officers don't know what to do when facing an armed and dangerous criminal. (according to one of the involved officers)
[QUOTE=arno_v]2. He should be shot down or even better be kicked to death by and angry mob... No he should be taken to court of course. What do you wan't, back to the dark ages?[/QUOTE]
His gun still had bullets and he wasn't afraid to donate them to random people. You say you would shoot him if it was a choice between you and him. Why are random people's lives less worth than your life? That shouldn't be so, especially if you're a police officer, protecting the people.
[QUOTE=Melchiah]1 A lot of policemen in Holland are a little inexperienced in these things because this quite simply doesn't happen that much here in Holland.[/QUOTE]
Luckily, yes, it doesn't happen often. But it does happen, apparently.
[QUOTE=Melchiah]2 DUDE! He should be arrested and convicted by court obviously! I for one am very pleased that Mohammed B failed in his attempt at Martyrdom.[/QUOTE]Mohammed B didn't shoot anyone else, but he could very well have, since he still had the gun when the police arrived. Is denying him his martyrdom worth more than the lives of the ones he takes?
[QUOTe=Melchiah]3 Yet again, DUDE! Since when does shooting someone automatically mean killing them! You can just shoot him in the leg or something, as long as he isn't a threat anymore.[/QUOTE]
You should try hitting limbs with a small firearm from a safe distance and with a shaky hand. It's fun.
------------
What Dottie describes is the other way around. (I didn't know it was like that in Sweden )
What's better: Cops not knowing when to shoot (Holland) or cops not knowing when not to shoot (Sweden)?
------------
@Fiona: Yes, but from what I have read, it could have easily gone very different. My main concern is that cops don't know what to do any more when they are/feel threatened. And I think that is because they fear the consequences: that they themselves will be tried.
EDIT: @Vicsun: It's late, I have to catch some sleep. No time to reply.
No, you're absolutely right. And we might as well cancel all lung-cancer research too, because we both don't smoke so there's little chance we die because of that... Oh, that was ironical.
The Mohammed B situation illustrated that Dutch officers don't know what to do when facing an armed and dangerous criminal. (according to one of the involved officers)
[QUOTE=arno_v]2. He should be shot down or even better be kicked to death by and angry mob... No he should be taken to court of course. What do you wan't, back to the dark ages?[/QUOTE]
His gun still had bullets and he wasn't afraid to donate them to random people. You say you would shoot him if it was a choice between you and him. Why are random people's lives less worth than your life? That shouldn't be so, especially if you're a police officer, protecting the people.
[QUOTE=Melchiah]1 A lot of policemen in Holland are a little inexperienced in these things because this quite simply doesn't happen that much here in Holland.[/QUOTE]
Luckily, yes, it doesn't happen often. But it does happen, apparently.
[QUOTE=Melchiah]2 DUDE! He should be arrested and convicted by court obviously! I for one am very pleased that Mohammed B failed in his attempt at Martyrdom.[/QUOTE]Mohammed B didn't shoot anyone else, but he could very well have, since he still had the gun when the police arrived. Is denying him his martyrdom worth more than the lives of the ones he takes?
[QUOTe=Melchiah]3 Yet again, DUDE! Since when does shooting someone automatically mean killing them! You can just shoot him in the leg or something, as long as he isn't a threat anymore.[/QUOTE]
You should try hitting limbs with a small firearm from a safe distance and with a shaky hand. It's fun.
------------
What Dottie describes is the other way around. (I didn't know it was like that in Sweden
) What's better: Cops not knowing when to shoot (Holland) or cops not knowing when not to shoot (Sweden)?
------------
@Fiona: Yes, but from what I have read, it could have easily gone very different. My main concern is that cops don't know what to do any more when they are/feel threatened. And I think that is because they fear the consequences: that they themselves will be tried.
EDIT: @Vicsun: It's late, I have to catch some sleep. No time to reply.
[size=-1]An optimist is a badly informed pessimist.[/size]
I am not worried about getting long cancer either, just like I am not worried about getting killed by an armed criminal, but if they should cancel the cancer research is a whole other point. I didn't say they should stop training Dutch cops because they don't end up in situations with armed criminals often.ik911 wrote:No, you're absolutely right. And we might as well cancel all lung-cancer research too, because we both don't smoke so there's little chance we die because of that... Oh, that was ironical.
I don't think my life is worth more than one of a random other person. I do think my life is worth more than a random criminal who just slaughtered someone, but only if it's me or him. If he can be stopped without killing him that is the best thing to do. Like I said earlier he should be taken to court, if possible.ik911]The Mohammed B situation illustrated that Dutch officers don't know what to do when facing an armed and dangerous criminal. (according to one of the involved officers)[/quote] Maybe you are right here wrote:His gun still had bullets and he wasn't afraid to donate them to random people. You say you would shoot him if it was a choice between you and him. Why are random people's lives less worth than your life? That shouldn't be so, especially if you're a police officer, protecting the people.
[QUOTE=ik911]Time pressure... And lack of sleep on my side too.
1. I find it worrying that they cannot protect us against those criminals.
2. Should he be shot instantly or must he be arrested and convicted by court?
3. Would you shoot the criminal? Would you shoot the enemy? Are you capable of killing another person? Or an animal? Could you kill a cow? Have we become too humane and civilized to kill?
Let's take it from here. Don't spam too much. [/QUOTE]
1. Police are garbage men for the judicial system. I've brought something along these lines up before in other threads. The laws here are broken, the police are corrupt, not to mention right in my area they are terrified of true "criminals".
2. Depends on the crime. The way it works here, the police are trained not to fire their weapons unless there is no alternative or someones life is directly in danger and the threat can be eliminated by shooting. So if someone has a gun, they are told to drop it or they will be shot at. If the person so much as moves the gun towards a living person, the police are trained to fire their weapons, and aim to kill.
Shooting a person and hitting a limb or something can end up with the person being able to sue the police department. The police ARE trained to shoot to kill, they are just sadly trained. Most of the drunken rednecks around here can out shoot the police with a rifle easily, pistols they just don't have any use for so no one but the police or paranoid have them.
3. In that situation? I saw no indication of the man doing anything violent with that once he had murdered that one person, unless you left something out? There would be no reason to shoot him if he didn't do anything else violent. If he did...well, I can't stand guns, I'd prefer to hit someone with one than shoot them, that or a sword. Yes, I could kill though, doesn't matter the species either. Why should it be harder to kill a human than a cow? Cows are more useful than humans IMHO. At least I can eat them and make clothing out of them, and they don't pollute the area they're in.
1. I find it worrying that they cannot protect us against those criminals.
2. Should he be shot instantly or must he be arrested and convicted by court?
3. Would you shoot the criminal? Would you shoot the enemy? Are you capable of killing another person? Or an animal? Could you kill a cow? Have we become too humane and civilized to kill?
Let's take it from here. Don't spam too much.
[/QUOTE]1. Police are garbage men for the judicial system. I've brought something along these lines up before in other threads. The laws here are broken, the police are corrupt, not to mention right in my area they are terrified of true "criminals".
2. Depends on the crime. The way it works here, the police are trained not to fire their weapons unless there is no alternative or someones life is directly in danger and the threat can be eliminated by shooting. So if someone has a gun, they are told to drop it or they will be shot at. If the person so much as moves the gun towards a living person, the police are trained to fire their weapons, and aim to kill.
Shooting a person and hitting a limb or something can end up with the person being able to sue the police department. The police ARE trained to shoot to kill, they are just sadly trained. Most of the drunken rednecks around here can out shoot the police with a rifle easily, pistols they just don't have any use for so no one but the police or paranoid have them.
3. In that situation? I saw no indication of the man doing anything violent with that once he had murdered that one person, unless you left something out? There would be no reason to shoot him if he didn't do anything else violent. If he did...well, I can't stand guns, I'd prefer to hit someone with one than shoot them, that or a sword. Yes, I could kill though, doesn't matter the species either. Why should it be harder to kill a human than a cow?
Cows are more useful than humans IMHO. At least I can eat them and make clothing out of them, and they don't pollute the area they're in."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"
[QUOTE=Melchiah]
3 Yet again, DUDE! Since when does shooting someone automatically mean killing them! You can just shoot him in the leg or something, as long as he isn't a threat anymore.[/QUOTE]
This is never a viable option - any force using firearms are almost always trained to shoot to kill for many reasons: the torso represents the biggest target, and under extreme pressure you cannot expect an officer to "partially" disable a target by aiming for a limb.
Also, it is a doctrine that when you raise a firearm to shoot someone, it is serious enough to warrant death. In a few cases a target may survive a shot, but you should never assume that a person may survive (even if you do try and aim for a limb) - doing so seriously undervalues the power of a firearm.
3 Yet again, DUDE! Since when does shooting someone automatically mean killing them! You can just shoot him in the leg or something, as long as he isn't a threat anymore.[/QUOTE]
This is never a viable option - any force using firearms are almost always trained to shoot to kill for many reasons: the torso represents the biggest target, and under extreme pressure you cannot expect an officer to "partially" disable a target by aiming for a limb.
Also, it is a doctrine that when you raise a firearm to shoot someone, it is serious enough to warrant death. In a few cases a target may survive a shot, but you should never assume that a person may survive (even if you do try and aim for a limb) - doing so seriously undervalues the power of a firearm.
"I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!"
1. Yeah, it's pretty same here where I live.
2. Those police officers should do everything to apprehend that criminal and bring him to court, unless he is danger to other people. Since Mohammed B. , obviously surendered they did their job just fine.
3. This is what my friend was told: "If you draw your gun, you must be ready to use it, otherwise you could end up dead. If you use it, allways shoot to kill because wounded criminal can still use his weapon and wound or possibly kill you, your collegue or some inocent bystander. Allways try to resolve any situation peacefully, but if perpetrator point his weapon at you or any other person use every force available to stop him." But let me tell you, if it's me or him, it's no brainer he's dead. Same goes if he's threatening some member of my family.
2. Those police officers should do everything to apprehend that criminal and bring him to court, unless he is danger to other people. Since Mohammed B. , obviously surendered they did their job just fine.
3. This is what my friend was told: "If you draw your gun, you must be ready to use it, otherwise you could end up dead. If you use it, allways shoot to kill because wounded criminal can still use his weapon and wound or possibly kill you, your collegue or some inocent bystander. Allways try to resolve any situation peacefully, but if perpetrator point his weapon at you or any other person use every force available to stop him." But let me tell you, if it's me or him, it's no brainer he's dead. Same goes if he's threatening some member of my family.
[QUOTE=Vicsun]1. I find it worrying that they cannot protect us against those criminals.
The job of the police isn't to protect. It is to apprehend those who have already committed a crime. The police only acts after a crime has been committed - the only reason someone can be arrested for plotting a murder is because plotting a murder is a crime in itself which the criminal has committed before he can be arrested.
If you want protection, hire a bodyguard.[/QUOTE]
I agree you can't expect the police to risk their lives for a criminal.
However, they are (theoretically) the only ones around with guns. So they have the opportunity (they are there) and the means (a lethal weapon) to take out a possible threat (the armed criminal); to protect indeed. Yet they wait. And while they wait, the criminal can shoot someone, right?
An armed dead criminal is no longer a risk for the police.
The job of the police isn't to protect. It is to apprehend those who have already committed a crime. The police only acts after a crime has been committed - the only reason someone can be arrested for plotting a murder is because plotting a murder is a crime in itself which the criminal has committed before he can be arrested.
If you want protection, hire a bodyguard.[/QUOTE]
I agree you can't expect the police to risk their lives for a criminal.
However, they are (theoretically) the only ones around with guns. So they have the opportunity (they are there) and the means (a lethal weapon) to take out a possible threat (the armed criminal); to protect indeed. Yet they wait. And while they wait, the criminal can shoot someone, right?
An armed dead criminal is no longer a risk for the police.
[size=-1]An optimist is a badly informed pessimist.[/size]