Over-reaction?

Date: Fri Jul 22 8:29 AM, 2005

Over-reaction?

Scott Leffler · Guru

Whether or not this is an over-reaction depends on whether the guy really was tied to the bombings or not.

BTW, where's Osama?

Date: Fri Jul 22 11:58 AM, 2005

Latest news reports are conflicting. Some say he's related to the copycats, some say not. He was probably just running because he's wanted by the police. Although, that doesn't explain the heavy coat in 70 degree weather...

What I find amazing is the British police, who rarely carry any kind of firearm, hit this guy 5 out of 5 times. Remember back when the LAPD was in a standoff of some kind and they discharged over 750 rounds and didn't hit who they were aiming at?

shughes · Senior Member

This thread is a great example for the compromise I sugested in the general forum. It was started by an anonymous poster. The link provided is blind, no one should open it. I know I didn't. What is one of the first things you learn when surfing the internet? Don't open it if you don't know what it is or where it came from.

Date: Sat Jul 23 11:33 PM, 2005

Dear Mum: We "regret" that we killed your Son, father, uncle, brother (pick one). But pardon the Queen but he was wearing a coat and someone said something about wires, or that might huv bin sumin aboot chips. Anyway, the Queen sends her royal regrets along with Tony's piquette recipe. We hope that helps.

In the future we'll be a bitsy more cautious when firing downward and into any man on the floor or the lorry station you can rest assuredly and we're an aweful bunch of muffins. Sorry aboot that Mum. Kidney pie may warm help you to warm the cockels and to get past what's his name. Pip, pip and a stiff upper lip, cheerio.

Man Shot by London Police Not Connected to Bombings
Citizens Say the Mistaken Killing Makes Them More Fearful
By JILL LAWLESS, AP
LONDON (July 23) - The man officers killed in a dramatic subway shooting apparently had nothing to do with a series of bombing attacks on London's transit system, police said Saturday, calling the death a "tragedy'' and expressing their regret.

Mindcrime · Guru

shughes wrote:

This thread is a great example for the compromise I sugested in the general forum. It was started by an anonymous poster. The link provided is blind, no one should open it. I know I didn't. What is one of the first things you learn when surfing the internet? Don't open it if you don't know what it is or where it came from.

If you place your pointer over a link for a moment, without clicking, the web address should appear at the base of your browser window (or pop up in a balloon, I forget what AOL does). The link is a yahoo news site and is completely safe.

jspeer · Guru

"Man Shot by London Police Not Connected to Bombings
Citizens Say the Mistaken Killing Makes Them More Fearful
By JILL LAWLESS, AP
LONDON (July 23) - The man officers killed in a dramatic subway shooting apparently had nothing to do with a series of bombing attacks on London's transit system, police said Saturday, calling the death a "tragedy'' and expressing their regret."

What did he do then?

Paper Tigress · Veteran Member

A lot of media moguls as well as government officials have been praising the British Police for their actions in the shooting of the innocent Brazilian national. They say given the atmosphere of terror they have experienced in the last few weeks, the officer responded appropriately, with deadly force. The man was running, presumably from the police, and did not comply with their order to stop. So they tackled him and shot him in the head.

Well, what if this man didn't respond because he was deaf? What if he didn't respond because he didn't understand the language? What if he didn't respond because, in Brazil, people are not being groomed to live in a terrifying police state? Are people are so paranoid that they have lost all reason and judgment? And these are the people trained to make these decisions. What about the general populace?

I am ashamed of how those police acted. This man was not carrying a backpack, or wearing a turban, or speaking into a celphone sideways, or whatever 'clue' terrorists give themselves away with. He was just trying to catch a train. Instead, he caught a rain of gunfire. It's nice to know they're on the job, looking out for potential terrorists, but can you really make that determination by looking at the back of someone's head at a full run?

Blair issued an apology, but the police department has thus far refused to.

Date: Tue Jul 26 12:11 PM, 2005

Ever wonder why we have an alert system in place?

Real bombs never give you time to evacuate or issue alerts.

Evacuations and terror alerts never preceed an actual attack or event.

Why do we bother? Seems like a waste of money and effort to me. I'd rather see money spent on real security instead of an alert system that does nothing but spread fear & panic. How about actually protecting our border? How about inspecting at every port in the nation? How about using our vast network of satellites & spies to find Osama? How about we just stop pissing off all our neighbors and learn to compromise?

Phantom

Date: Tue Jul 26 9:47 PM, 2005

I love the way that almost none of the newspapers mentioned that the police were in plain clothes. If I was being chased by strangers in normal clothes, yelling & waving pistols, I'd probably run too.

Police can only open fire when a weapon or something that looks like a weapon is drawn or when somone endangers the life of the cop or the life of spectators. So if it looked for a second like that Brazilian was going to detonate a bomb it was the officer's duty to control the situation (stop him from detonating the bomb). And the only way to make sure he doesnt detonate the bomb is to kill him instantly (shoot him repeatedly in the head). The reason they unloaded into his head is that in Israel, this has been found to be the safest method of stopping a suicide bomber (body shots may explode the bomb/the suicide bomber could be wearing a protective vest).

and it is frightening that Blair is supporting the "it's ok to shoot suspects in the head multiple times" method. The last time I checked, it was illegal to execute someone before they have had a fair trial. NYC is a place I never want to visit, just like Chicago (again). Who wants to live where the police need to be armed like soldiers, yet the citizens aren't allowed to carry guns for protection?

Paper Tigress · Veteran Member

What Tony Blair has been talking about recently just makes no sense. If we advocate a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy, then:

A) It means that there is no hope of negotiating with terrorists. This is a policy that I personally do not agree with, because it costs lives, prolongs the conflict, and punishes everyone.
B) Terrorists really have nothing left to lose. If discovered, they will likely detonate any explosives, rather than possibly surrendering.
C) Never mind a fair trial before execution, last time I checked England didn't have the death penalty, so it's wrong on many levels. You cannot justify killing someone on 'suspicion.' That's what evidence is for.

Oh, wait. D) You might be SHOT IN THE HEAD for no reason.

Maybe we could change "Innocent until proven guilty" to "Innocent until you leave your house."