Originally posted by Ragnoraki'm not your English tutor - look it up yourself, lazy sod. and look up narcissism while you're at it. your use of the language is so imprecise as to be useless. well, if it is not your native language, that's excusable, but not useful in a debate.
Your narcissism is astounding. Please point me to somewhere that it states that executions aren't executions if they take place 'in hot blood'.
It was an execution, plain and simple. The law enforcers took it into their own hands to judge an innocent man guilty and they executed him while they had him pinned on the ground.
D
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050723/325/fo176.html
Police doing what they have been trained to do...
"But the city's former police chief John Stevens defended the tactics.
"I sent teams to Israel and other countries hit by suicide bombers where we learned a terrible truth," he wrote in the News of the World.
"There is only one sure way to stop a suicide bomber determined to fulfil his mission -- destroy his brain instantly, utterly. That means shooting him with devastating power in the head, killing him immediately."
Originally posted by Freddie2004They did the wrong thing - if you are using lethal force there is no such thing as an honest mistake. The police have murdered someone. The police actions so far have not made anyone safer - certainly not Jean Charles de Menezes. What thwarted the bombers second attack was their own incompetence with explosives, not the police investigation. We cannot have a situation where the police are entitled to shoot on suspicion. They say that they may need to shoot more people. To what end? How are essentially random police killings going to help? Their intellegence clearly wasn't very good, they did not have 'good reason' to believe that he was involved. They shot an innocent man without good cause.
To be quite frank I couldn't care less if he was retarded, foreign, whatever. The fact of the matter is that our police did what they felt was the right thing to do. why can you not grasp that the police didn't know if he was foreign, retarded or anything else, all they knew was that a guy running out of a house that was under surveilance was ignoring ...[text shortened]... nd is wearing a thick jacket in the summer and has "wires" coming out of his jacket???
Fred
You are far too ready to trust that the authorities are doing what is in your best interests. Remember that this government lied to take us to war, it wasn't about biological and chemical weapns it was about oil - Blair's excuse that they were misled by intellegence isn't good enough - as if you are the primeminister taking a decision of that magnitude there is no such thing as an honest mistake. Either he knew it was untrue or he should have known it was untrue.
They have been removing ancient rights like habeas corpus and double jeopardy, these exist to protect the innocent from arbitrary justice. If the state is allowed to do it then they will. There is now considerable pressure for the arrest of a bomber and since terror suspects can be held without trial (habeas corpus) the scope for a miscarriage of justice is higher. This means that an innocent man or woman has their life ruined, and the guilty are left free to plan a new attack.
A more brutal police force won't produce enough security to prevent a determined terrorist cell from successfully carrying out attacks, but it will create conditions which make the formation of such a cell more likely and generate sympathy for them which will make it easier for them to operate.
Originally posted by dfm65narcissism: Excessive love or admiration of oneself.
i'm not your English tutor - look it up yourself, lazy sod. and look up narcissism while you're at it. your use of the language is so imprecise as to be useless. well, if it is not your native language, that's excusable, but not useful in a debate.
Everyone of your posts recently have been loaded with "I know best, I'm so great, you can't speak english as good as me, you can't spell as good as me, you don't know politics as good as me, my nickname is the best one on here, etc, etc, etc." Hence, you're a narcissist. I would have thought such a genius as yourself wouldn't have needed a mere pleb like me to explain it to you.
Execution: a putting to death as fulfillment of a judicial death sentence
You make assertions that only you agree with, fully expecting the rest of us to be taken in by your nonsense.
I say again, show me a link (or any kind of proof) that says that executions can't occur 'in hot blood'.
D
Originally posted by dfm65I find it strange that this comes from the same person who was outraged at the idea that innocent people might be accused of cheating at RHP, and who was talking about the "RHP Stasi". So having your games checked is an unacceptable infringement on your freedom, but being killed for running away because you panic is okay? You should take your own advice and try to see things in perspective.
i would be if they shot me after i simply raised my hands and showed i wasn't a threat. if i ran into a train station and onto a train in a city where several bombs had been set off on trains in recent weeks, i would have to concede i saw their point of view.
It seems that dfm is the only one talking sense in this thread. Most of the rest is knee-kerk, left-wing, bleeding heart softness.
The guy did speak English, so whoever said that was spouting shite.
This guy was being trailed, the police were following him but presumably didn't actually suspect him of having a bomb until he jumped the turnstiles and ran.
As I said before hind-sight is great.
If the police shot this guy dead and he had nothing - the police did wrong.
If it turned out he was armed - they did right.
If they didn't shoot and he was innocent, no big deal.
If they didn't shoot and he blew up the train, most people on here would have been complaining about incompetence.
Policing under these circumstances must be a very tough job, that few people commenting here seem to be able to understand.
Originally posted by VargAs I have said before, I don't think you can justify your actions by information you get later, although this is done all the time. (Another example is the war in Iraq - would the war have been justified if weapons of mass destruction had been found *after* the war had been started? Many people seem to think so, I don't.) You can only base the actions of the police on the information they had at that time. It doesn't really matter whether the man was a terrorist or not, what's important is that the police didn't know whether he was. I am also fully aware that policing under these circumstances must be a very tough job. I don't envy them. But from all I have heard, I still believe they did the wrong thing (but like no1marauder, I won't judge them without having all the facts). And what really worries me is that the police didn't say something along the lines of "we will do everything we can to avoid that something like this happens again", but more like "we apologize for this incident, but it might happen again". This means this is not a single unfortunate incident.
It seems that dfm is the only one talking sense in this thread. Most of the rest is knee-kerk, left-wing, bleeding heart softness.
The guy did speak English, so whoever said that was spouting shite.
This guy was being trailed, the police were following him but presumably didn't actually suspect him of having a bomb until he jumped the turnstiles and ran.
As ...[text shortened]... stances must be a very tough job, that few people commenting here seem to be able to understand.
Originally posted by arrakisYou are joking aren't you?
Yup! Judge, jury a and executioner. Those Brits don't molly-coddle people like the Americans do.
If any of these terrorists are actually caught they will be set for life (or at least a couple of years) with a nice cell, TV, civil rights, prison guards getting sent on racial awareness courses and as many Korans as they can eat.
Originally posted by VargYup, much better to just shoot anyone in the head five times who the police have the slightest reason to believe MAY be a terrorist or flaunter of a table leg.
You are joking aren't you?
If any of these terrorists are actually caught they will be set for life (or at least a couple of years) with a nice cell, TV, civil rights, prison guards getting sent on racial awareness courses and as many Korans as they can eat.
Originally posted by no1marauderIndeed! Just because you hear the phrase "ARMED POLICE!!! GET DOWN ON THE GROUND!!!" and then use the nearest security barrier as a hurdle and start doing your Linford Christie impression down a tube station, carrying a suspicious looking rucksack, just after a spree of horffic tube-station bombings... it doesn't mean you should instantly be branded a terrorist!
Yup, much better to just shoot anyone in the head five times who the police have the slightest reason to believe MAY be a terrorist or flaunter of a table leg.
I want to keep my honest opinion clear and short.
This case stinks as a summary execution conducted by ill trained policemen. It's obvious, at least for me, that they didn't adhere to the doctrine they were teached in.
This kind of law enforcement personnel, having permission to kill, and not being experienced in this type of situations, are a real danger for *all* the comunity.
Terrorism isn't a new thing between us. They should be trained in the fight against terrorism. And that is responsibility of the authorities.
Please wake up!
1 edit
Originally posted by VargHaving a difficult job is no excuse for getting it wrong and causing someones death. If an electrician or a plumber (gas) gets it wrong to the extent of causing a fire in which there are fatalities they are prosecuted for manslaughter due to negligence. You don't get people going round saying "oh well they have a difficult job - stop criticising you armchair plumbers."
It seems that dfm is the only one talking sense in this thread. Most of the rest is knee-kerk, left-wing, bleeding heart softness.
The guy did speak English, so whoever said that was spouting shite.
This guy was being trailed, the police wer ...[text shortened]... ob, that few people commenting here seem to be able to understand.
They jumped on him and had him under their power before shooting him. Had he been a bomber, if able, he would have had ample time to set the device off; when first challenged, during the chase or during the struggle - since he hadn't by then there was no cause to shoot him even if he had turned out to be a terrorist.
I think the coppers thought he had a bomb and stopped him from detonating it in the manner in which they were trained to do.
I can't say whether or not they had sufficient reason to believe he had a bomb because I wasn't there. I think they might have had a good reason considering recent events and the man's actions as reported in the press.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIdiot!
Yup, much better to just shoot anyone in the head five times who the police have the slightest reason to believe MAY be a terrorist or flaunter of a table leg.
If you don't have anything to say, then just put words in someone elses mouth or use non-sequiters.