Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not sure whether this man gave the police any choice in the matter. At the end of the day, for all they knew, he could have had a bomb on him. Judging by his actions, you could well be forgiven thinking that this was the case. He was in a train full of people and if he was carrying a bomb, there could have been a lot more deaths than one. He should never have run off in the first place. I know it sounds callous, but in the present climate, the police are between a rock and a hard place. They had to make a split second decision, and it tragically ended in the death of an innocent man.
Please enlighten me and inform me when Australia became a fascist dictatorship where the police are allowed to kill you for not obeying their orders; I must have missed this. In both the "table leg" case and now this one, you have excused a police killing on the police's simple claim that a "suspect" (actually not even technically that) d ...[text shortened]... facts must be examined to determine if the police acted irresponsibly and should be disciplined.
Originally posted by jimslyp69I await the results of the police investigation; all we have so far is contradictory eyewitness accounts and fragmentary reports. If it was an unavoidable death under the circumstances that presently exist, I would chalk it up to another person killed because of the Iraq war - I don't think that absent the war the police would have shot a man under the same circumstances.
I'm not sure whether this man gave the police any choice in the matter. At the end of the day, for all they knew, he could have had a bomb on him. Judging by his actions, you could well be forgiven thinking that this was the case. He was in a train full of people and if he was carrying a bomb, there could have been a lot more deaths than one. He should ne ...[text shortened]... ey had to make a split second decision, and it tragically ended in the death of an innocent man.
Originally posted by no1marauderI just heard a report that they (the police) have concluded that the man shot to death had no connections to the terrorist bombings in London. We'll see what happens now.
I await the results of the police investigation; all we have so far is contradictory eyewitness accounts and fragmentary reports. If it was an unavoidable death under the circumstances that presently exist, I would chalk it up to another person killed because of the Iraq war - I don't think that absent the war the police would have shot a man under the same circumstances.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, we shall wait and see. That would be the best policy. And hopefully the truth will out.
I await the results of the police investigation; all we have so far is contradictory eyewitness accounts and fragmentary reports. If it was an unavoidable death under the circumstances that presently exist, I would chalk it up to another person killed because of the Iraq war - I don't think that absent the war the police would have shot a man under the same circumstances.
Originally posted by no1marauderin certain circumstances police are allowed to shoot to kill in self defence. in the case of the chair leg, it obviously looked enough like a gun in that plastic bag to have prompted someone to call the police. and if you read the report, he turned, raised the chair leg, gripped it with both hands and aimed it at one of the officers. they have a split second to react. there are two possible mistakes they can make - they shoot an innocent man; or they fail to shoot and a police officer gets killed. obviously they must be allowed to shoot in such situations; it would be unreasonable to insist otherwise.
Please enlighten me and inform me when Australia became a fascist dictatorship where the police are allowed to kill you for not obeying their orders; I must have missed this. In both the "table leg" case and now this one, you have excused a police killing on the police's simple claim that a "suspect" (actually not even technically that) d ...[text shortened]... facts must be examined to determine if the police acted irresponsibly and should be disciplined.
in critical circumstances, it is reasonable for police to shoot if someone disobeys their orders. not just any disobedience, as you disingenuously insinuate, but disobedience that presents an apparent threat to the lives of the officers and/or nearby citizens. both the chair leg incident and the tube shooting on Friday fall into this category. in both cases, if those shot had simply stopped and raised their hands, they would be alive today. one acted as if pointing a gun at police; the other ran onto a train in a city where scores of people had been killed and injured by public transport bombings just two weeks prior, and another attempt had been made just the day before. no-one is suggesting that the police would be justified in shooting someone for, say, not moving along when asked to do so. even you must be able to distinguish between these two kinds of cases. that helmet that protects your little brain from the propaganda the government beams at you must be getting a bit tight.
Originally posted by dfm65If you seriously believe the policeman's story in the table leg case, you're more of a moron than I thought.
in certain circumstances police are allowed to shoot to kill in self defence. in the case of the chair leg, it obviously looked enough like a gun in that plastic bag to have prompted someone to call the police. and if you read the report, he turned, raised the chair leg, gripped it with both hands and aimed it at one of the officers. they have a split second t ...[text shortened]... your little brain from the propaganda the government beams at you must be getting a bit tight.
1 edit
Originally posted by dfm65http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4099522.stm
is that the best you've got? sounds like a non-argument to me.
Yeah right a guy with a table leg turns around and points it at someone as if it was a gun. If anybody BUT a policeman told you that, would you believe it?
You've already made it clear that no matter what the facts are, you don't think the police should be disciplined. THAT is a non-argument.
Originally posted by no1marauderobviously their story is more than superficially plausible:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4099522.stm
Yeah right a guy with a table leg turns around and points it at someone as if it was a gun. If anybody BUT a policeman told you that, would you believe it?
You've already made it clear that no matter what the facts are, you don't think the police should be disciplined. THAT is a non-argument.
1. the first inquest found an open verdict
2. this was quashed by the high court after lobbying by the dead man's family
3. a second inquest found unlawful killing
4. this was overturned, so the original open verdict stood
5. new forensic evidence led to the men's arrest
6. they still haven't been convicted of anything, so far as i know.
so after six years and all this legal process, what actually happened remains unclear. it must be allowed that their version of events is pretty hard to shoot down (no pun intended).
at any rate, even if it transpires that the officers lied about what happened, i still maintain that if events had occurred as they described, they would have been justified in shooting. and that's all i need: there are some circumstances in which police are justified in shooting to kill - when they have good cause to believe there is a threat to their own lives or those of nearby citizens. the tube shooting fits into the same category.
is that clear enough?
maybe where you're from, half the local PD is a paid-up, sheet wearing, cross-burning member of the KKK - in which case i understand your concerns.
Originally posted by dfm65The police officers involved have been charged with murder based on new forsenic evidence. They have mostly avoided punishment due to political presure from the police officers' union.
obviously their story is more than superficially plausible:
1. the first inquest found an open verdict
2. this was quashed by the high court after lobbying by the dead man's family
3. a second inquest found unlawful killing
4. this was overturned, so the original open verdict stood
5. new forensic evidence led to the men's arrest
6. they still haven ...[text shortened]... d-up, sheet wearing, cross-burning member of the KKK - in which case i understand your concerns.
It is true that when you are the only witnesses left alive because you killed the other people there, your story can be difficult to refute. So all police officers have to do to satisfy your criteria when they kill someone is come up with a sufficient rationale. Their story is highly implausible and most certainly BS. The guy was drinking lemonade in a pub; not exactly showing high signs of dangerousness. He was a 100 yards away from his home walking slowly. The police approached him from behind; he had no choice but to turn around. As far as the brandishing the table leg like a gun, that's simply ridiculous and obviously concoted after the fact to excuse their panicked killing of a totally innocent man. I find it disgusting that anyone would excuse this totally unjustifiable killing; if Harry Stanley can be killed under the circumstances given, then anyone confronted by the police can be killed and nothing will be done about it. And blaming the victim is a typical ploy of the guilty.
Your standard isn't enough for me; "good cause" could mean almost anything. NY law requires that to use deadly physical force,you must "reasonably believe that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force". A reasonable belief is required under ALL the facts; the "table leg" case clearly fails that standard. More facts are necessary to determine whether the police acted "reasonably" in London, even if your mind is already made up.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe police acted irresponsibly that's a given.
I am not willing to give police the right to kill anyone who doesn't immediately submit to their authority but all the relevant facts must be examined to determine if the police acted irresponsibly and should be disciplined.
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSeems to me YOU have the short memory, among other things about you.....anyway, I said IF...IF...the scumbag was responsible....IF he had nothing to do with the subway bombings, then it would be a travesty of justice....what other post by me are you referring to? The one about racial profiling? Tell me, whom you would search for bombs on the subway?
He was being followed because he left a house that was under surveillance, so it's quite possible that he had nothing to do with it. We don't have the death penalty here, and it's not justice unless there is a trial.
Your other p ...[text shortened]... outrage before 9/11 in your country. You do have a short memory.
A. 55 year-old WASP female?
B. 17 year-old white girl?
C. 20-40 year-old Paki/Saudi/Afghan wearing a book bag and looking nervous....
Knowing how you politically-correct intellectuals think, I have to venture that you would choose B.....if so, place your head between your legs in preparation of the next round of explosions....😲 🙄