What's new

News in brief

Joined
Sep 4, 2004
Messages
703
Location
Sydney, Australia
I'd like to add my few cents worth here too. This thread seems to be running under the impression that this man disobeyed instructions from uniformed police officers. This is not the case. They were plain-clothes police. If I had a bunch of guys with guns yelling at me, I'd probably run too. Uniformed police are a different matter. Also, please remember the British general duties police are unarmed. Yes, police don't carry guns in the UK, unless they're special response police.

Britain, unlike the US, does not have the death penalty. Killing someone, particularly an innocent person, whilst not something unsettling for many in the US, is deeply disturbing for those of us from jurisdictions where taking a life is not acceptable regardless of who does it. For police to shoot an innocent man 8 times in the head is a terrible execution style killing. It may have been a mistake from nervous, gung-ho anti-terrorist police, but the fact remains that an innocent man was killed by an instrument of the state. If you are happy to put up your hand as say 'I am prepared to be killed by police accidently if it means higher levels of security can be enforced on behalf of the general population', then you have a more morally defensible position to not be too upset by this event, because at least you wouldn't be a hypocrite. But if you are not prepared to give up your life, why should someone else give up theirs?

It's easy for people to judge this man based on their own cultural precepts. But he was a Brazilian, from a tropical climate living in a cool climate (and as an Australian who has lived in London, I laugh at what Londoners call 'sweltering' weather), so what he was wearing may not have been that unusual. He had a bunch of guys in suits waving guns at him yelling at him in a very jumpy city. What would you do if a bunch of guys in Sao Paulo started waving guns at you and yelling at you? Did Jean Paul really deserve to be killed for that?
 

JB_OrchidGuy

Cardiac Nurse
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
3,818
Location
SC
herenorthere I really do not believe I read your statement correctly.  Your calling a country that has cops who shoot someone because they were running from them and wearing an oversized coat oppressive?  First of all there was just a bombing and the guys used back packs.  Darn right cops are going to be on edge.  Wouldnt you.  Now don't Lie.  Your riding a train where you know bombs just went off and you have someon suspicious sitting next to you.  I do not believe for one minute you wouldnt be sweating.  Second you DO NOT run from the cops when ordered to stop.  That is just dumb.  A man who works for the state and who normaly are under alot of scrutiny anyways.  Not to mention is carrying a gun asks you to stop in a public place you stop.  Dark alley I would say I probably would have ran too.  But this was a public place.  What other reason would that dumb A** have to run for?  Granted stun gun might have been a better alternative, but think if he did have a bomb on him wouldnt the stun gun have set it off?  Bottom line there has to be some order and I'm sorry if you think cops are oppressive because they shot a man under suspition when he decided to run.  I used to think cops were bad and there are some bad ones, but not all and they are doing their job trying to protect people.  Bottom line is when a cop with a gun asks you to stop you stop.  Point blank simple!



ok now if they were plain clothed then I will have to rethink my responce. I don't believe there should be plain clothed or unmarked officers vehicles they do nothing but try to entrap people but thats another story. I'm out.
 
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Messages
457
smile.gif
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
1,262
Location
Northern VA
[b said:
Quote[/b] (herenorthere @ July 27 2005,9:23)]By the way, the US population accepts a huge number of deaths on its roads - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data show 42,800 died in 2004.  That's more than a 9/11 every month.  I'm not making light of 9/11 or of terrorism in general, but I see no reason to create a militarized police state in response to terrorism if such a carnage on the roads doesn't bother us enough to sacrifice any speed or convenience.
Glad to finally hear someone else say it. That's been my problem with the whole terror war from the beginning. The powers that be say it's about saving (or bettering) lives, but there's rampant famine going on all over the place that you rarely hear them say a word about, let alone start crusades over. Logically you have to conclude that it's not really about saving/bettering lives. So then you think, ok, maybe they're just interested in saving American lives (which is creepy in its own right... assigning people's value based on citizenship). But you have these various diseases (or car accidents) cumulatively killing 1000x as many Americans as any terror attack ever would... and you don't see anyone clamoring to spend $180 billion to cure a couple of them. And just how much food does $180 billion buy, for that matter? So logically you have to conclude that it's not about numbers of lives at all. It's simple algebra.

As you keep peeling back and peeling back and peeling back... the various motivations spurring this fiasco on just get less and less heroic.

Ultimately the terrorists' intent has been to bleed us to death via our own panicked, desperate spending. And it looks like we've been quite eager to make that happen... meanwhile shouting "the terrorists will never win!" through a bullhorn every step of the way.

When you act out of fear as a terrorist wants you to... you are doing no less than aiding and abetting that terrorist, are you not?

In my opinion, gradually giving up those ideals America was built on (freedom, liberty, yada yada) does more damage to the country long term than a bomb going off could. You can't practice the ideals you define yourself with only when it's convenient to... otherwise why have them at all? Times of dire conflict are precisely the times when those ideals are the most useful. And historically that's when we're most likely to squander them.

Which is why it's hard for me to take it seriously when people start trumpeting what being American is all about. The minute something scares many of them, those ideals start going right out the window. "Sure, I would give up some of my freedoms to feel safer." All that's needed to feel safe is, again, algebra. Your car will kill you before anything else will.

Hm, that turned into a longer rant than I intended. Anyway, uhhh, back to shootings in London...

(Incidentally only the first paragraph had anything to do with what herenorthere was saying.
smile.gif
)
 

JBL

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
1,153
I guess those special forces guys aren't too smart. They should only look for guys with big coats and sandwich boards reading "Look Out! Terrorist Bomber" on one side and "I work for Osama and infidel sandwiches" on the other side...
smile_m_32.gif
.
 
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Messages
457
Thank you endparenthesis for a very essential post. Maybe your user name should be endexclamation mark
smile_m_32.gif
because you nailed alot of people's thoughts down. There is a growing amount of people who are tired of the status quo.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
836
Location
Evanston, IL
The policemen who chased this man down and slaughtered him were plain-clothes.

The neighborhood this man was from was not a good one. Lot's of thugs and muggings, from what I understand. So, if someone screams at you to stop...it might be a pre-cursor to a mugging and/or a beating and/or worse....

....if you run, the cops kill you, if you don't, the thugs do. What a choice to have to make! One can only hope the cops in this case go to jail for the rest of their lives, but I'm sure they'll get off with a slap on the wrist.
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2001
Messages
2,005
Location
United Kingdom
It's a very sad episode.

However, they actually shouted "Stop! Armed police!" The man was staying in Britain under an expired visa so that is a probable reason why he ran. He was wearing a bulky jacket on a summer's day, leapt over a turnstile and ran towards a train. In those few seconds they had to decide whether he was a possible suicide bomber. He was of non-caucasian appearance. They had to decide whether he was a sucide bomber in a short space of time with all these pieces of information. I would have said there was a good reason to shoot and it's just a tragedy that they were wrong.


[b said:
Quote[/b] ] (and as an Australian who has lived in London, I laugh at what Londoners call 'sweltering' weather)
Well I would say 90F, and 100F+ on the tube could be descibed as sweltering - a more and more common occurance in the last decade in London.
 
Top