|
Author
|
Topic: london blasts
|
Slaytanic
VoivodFan
Member # 28
|
posted July 25, 2005 17:40
    
quote:
Originally posted by Lyckantropen:
But while the police were wrong to think he was a suicide bomber, and probably wrong to shoot before waiting just a couple of seconds when he was on the ground, the man himself was wrong to ACT like a suicide bomber.
Lyc, the man could have stolen something and be running, yet the Police would still be wrong. There are many ways of stopping a man, even shooting, without having to kill him. This is not regular citizens we're talking about, it's the Police, people who are, suposedly, TRAINED for situations like this. If the man shot was a suspect (presumption is, if he was tailed from his very home, SY had enough evidence of his "guilt") why then letting him get to the subway station and enter the train, instead of entering his house or stopping him when he was leaving home? In this case, US Police, e.g., is much more efficient in preventing disasters, it's more acceptable (legally speaking) to violate one's privacy rights in favour of common security (remember we're talking about an exception, i.e. the danger of other suicidal terrorists assaulting London) than to violate one's right of living, that's a dangerous line to cross, as it becomes evident in this case. -------------------- "Forty-five moments of perfection translated through a cautionary escape into the perils of the mundane, the inherent entropy in ultimate order, and the potential threats of eternal, unchecked apathy in civilization; all cloaked in musical expression so thoughtful, creative and forward thinking that almost a quarter-century later, few can even comprehend it, much less match it." (autothrall)
| IP: Logged
|
|
LyKcantropen
VoivodFan
Member # 162
|
posted July 25, 2005 19:18
I'm not trying to say that this was right, only that it is understandable. Sure, the police receive training - in the UK's example, rigorous training, because only the "best" can carry weapons - but at the end of the day, they are still scared men with guns. And scared men with guns do stupid things. I'm not in favour of regular policemen carrying guns at all, and certainly not of shoot-to-kill tactics, for this reason. The police today warned that "more innocents could be killed". I think that's appalling, genuinely I do. But why are we trying to pretend that it's not ALSO a stupid thing to run from armed police, vault over a ticket turnstile and run onto a train, after being challenged? We can level the finger at the police all we like, and rightly so, but at the end of the day, if he had not run, he would not have been shot. If he had stopped when challenged (which means that the police should have identified themselves as such beyond any doubt, if they didn't, that's a whole other kettle of fish), he would not have been shot.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Slaytanic
VoivodFan
Member # 28
|
posted July 25, 2005 21:13
quote:
Originally posted by Lyckantropen:
We can level the finger at the police all we like, and rightly so, but at the end of the day, if he had not run, he would not have been shot. If he had stopped when challenged (which means that the police should have identified themselves as such beyond any doubt, if they didn't, that's a whole other kettle of fish), he would not have been shot.
In law studies, there is a "science" called victimology, which was a trend over here some time ago (lawyers loved it, attorneys and the rest of the law world mocked about it). Victimology, in its most extreme fashion, tries to put the guilt of a crime (or at least part of it, before you protest  ) on the victim. Example: a woman walks at night on a desert street, going back home after a day at job. Gets attacked, subjugated and raped by a man, who was hidden in an abandoned house near her home. General understanding, legally and morally speaking is, obviously, the raper is totally wrong, the woman has every right in the world to walk on the street without being attacked by anyone. "Victimologists" try to put at least part of the guilt on the behaviour of the woman, saying that, if she got a cab to drive her home, avoiding the desert street (after all, in today's world one can't be 100% safe), she would not be raped. The raper surely has a psychological problem and is a victim of the system. In this particular case you sound like a victimologist to me. I agree with you, running from the police was not a smart move. On the other hand, shooting in the back can never be an option. If the policemen are afraid, you can say the same about the citizens. Difference is, the Police is in the streets to provide public security, not to scare people even more. -------------------- "Forty-five moments of perfection translated through a cautionary escape into the perils of the mundane, the inherent entropy in ultimate order, and the potential threats of eternal, unchecked apathy in civilization; all cloaked in musical expression so thoughtful, creative and forward thinking that almost a quarter-century later, few can even comprehend it, much less match it." (autothrall)
| IP: Logged
|
|
LyKcantropen
VoivodFan
Member # 162
|
posted July 26, 2005 07:18
quote:
In this particular case you sound like a victimologist to me.
Nothing of the sort, and that's a very, very disingenuous analogy you made there. I'm honestly disappointed, Slay. It's like saying "there's a mode of political thought called "communism". Communists believe all babies should be killed. You sound like a communist!" I'm through here.
| IP: Logged
|
|
vroomfondel
VoivodFan
Member # 139
|
posted July 26, 2005 07:49
Apparently the guy was chased by a few troublemakers looking for a fight a few weeks earlier, and when suddenly another bunch (cops dressed as civilians) get's at him again, and this time with guns. it's not so surprising that he runs like hell.No easy situation to be in for the Police either, doing him like they did or let him get on the Tube and blow 50 people to bits. A fucked up result in a fucked up situation. I hope they let the good ol SAS do their work when they find the real guys. Like they did in the 80īs in the Iranian Embassy, when a group took hostages and SAS entered. One of the terrorists was much heavier after they were done with him. He was shot 82 times. Better safe than sorry is their motto. -------------------- "Sir, we are surrounded!
- Excellent, then we can attack in any direction!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
Slaytanic
VoivodFan
Member # 28
|
posted July 26, 2005 12:45
quote:
Originally posted by warcorpse:
A week later we know EVERYTHING. Knowing everything a week later is so easy. So clear, so obvious. The police did not have the luxury of time.
Some things, like shooting before asking, don't necessarily take a week for any normal person to know. Again, we're not talking about regular citizens, we're talking about the Police, for God's sake. They're human beings, they have the right to make a mistake, okay, totally agreed. On the other hand, they also have the right to pay for the mistake made. It doesn't mean that, all of a sudden, London Police becomes the devil, far from it. It's a matter of acting wrongly and responding for it. quote:
Originally posted by warcorpse:
Lets go back. People were placing bombs and blowing themselves up in tubes. Back on that day the Police thought they were chasing a bomb. Not questioning, CHASING. When you chase a bomb you could blow up with it. Not easy.
Agreed again, but those are the dangers of being a policeman. I work at the court, have contact with policemen everyday. Actually, my father was a policeman for 30+ years. All of them were unanimous: nationality put aside, shooting the man in the back was the worst move to make. quote:
Originally posted by Lyckantropen: Nothing of the sort, and that's a very, very disingenuous analogy you made there. I'm honestly disappointed, Slay. It's like saying "there's a mode of political thought called "communism". Communists believe all babies should be killed. You sound like a communist!" I'm through here.
I know you're through (nice way to put an end to an argument, btw ), but anyway, speak of disappointment. You say I'm disingenuous and then come with ye good ole "communists kill babies" story? Gimme a break. The situation fits perfectly. Technically speaking: you can't put the guilt of the crime simply on the victim. Even if it's concurrent guilt, it doesn't compensate for the other's behaviour. This is one of the pillars of public security, anywhere in the civilized world, since the abolition of self-defense. Again, due to my language limitations, I may have not been clear. I do believe, though, that the main guilt of the accident lies on the Police, not on the man killed. If there was a suspect of carrying a bomb, the Police has something called "legal duty", they can't just say, "I can't approach the man, because I believe he carries a bomb and I can't risk my life. I'm sorry if if means many people will be killed by his action, but there's nothing I can do". Not everything legally acceptable is morally acceptable, but then, that's the rules of living in society, it doesn't always please everybody. This situation is as technical as it gets, and there is no other angle to face it. One doesn't like to take risks, well then, there's always other job options. -------------------- "Forty-five moments of perfection translated through a cautionary escape into the perils of the mundane, the inherent entropy in ultimate order, and the potential threats of eternal, unchecked apathy in civilization; all cloaked in musical expression so thoughtful, creative and forward thinking that almost a quarter-century later, few can even comprehend it, much less match it." (autothrall)
| IP: Logged
|
|
LyKcantropen
VoivodFan
Member # 162
|
posted July 26, 2005 17:17
quote:
Technically speaking: you can't put the guilt of the crime simply on the victim.
And I haven't. I've made that very clear, I've had to repeat myself several times. Go back and read my posts. And then, just because I suggest, heaven forbid, that he has to bear responsibility for his own actions for ignoring express police warnings, you use an appeal to emotion by using an analogy which suggests that I believe "women are to blame for getting raped". I mean, there are other examples you could have used of "victimology". But no, you used the most emotive one for the express purpose of tarring me or my point of view. Not appreciated, my man, whether that was your intention or not.  quote:
good ole "communists kill babies" story?
Yeah, that was an attempt at humour. C'mon, I'm the last person here who'd believe that. The point was that you raised an idea, said something which made that idea sound terrible, then suggested I subscribed to that idea.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Slaytanic
VoivodFan
Member # 28
|
posted July 27, 2005 01:16
Well, the idea was not to express emotion at all, actually my intention was to be as legally technical as possible, rape happens to be the classic doctrine example when explaining "victimology". Sorry if I bothered you, Lyc, that was not my intention at all.Plus, you're right, reading your previous posts again, I exagerated your point of view on the subject. You could have stopped there and it would be a slap on the face for me. But... quote:
And then, just because I suggest, heaven forbid, that he has to bear responsibility for his own actions for ignoring express police warnings, you use an appeal to emotion by using an analogy which suggests that I believe "women are to blame for getting raped".I mean, there are other examples you could have used of "victimology". But no, you used the most emotive one for the express purpose of tarring me or my point of view.
...and you spoiled everything by accusing me of using bad faith. What an insult. You shouldn't interpret things the way you want, by no means I was suggesting that you believe women are to blame for being raped. The idea was just to point the absurdity of said theory (victimology), never to tar you or your point of view. I thought that, by now, it was already clear that I don't need to demonize others' opinions in order to prove my point, that's why I didn't mind citing this example. Unfortunately I was wrong, the anger on your last post shows me caution has to be always an option. I should have been redundant and said you sounded like a victimologist in the 'shooting in the back' situation THAT'S BEEN THE CENTRAL TOPIC, not in the 'rape' example, used just to ilustrate victimology in its EXTREME INTERPRETATION (if you care to read my previous posts you'll see I'm telling the truth). (Just for the record, victimology, in its normal interpretation, is still used as a defense technique to at least diminish the criminal's guilt, by stating that, in some particular cases - a fistfight, if you will - the victim had a participation in creating the situation. Looking from this angle, yes, Lyc, you DID USE victimology when elaborating on the subject. Okay, I should have mentioned this in my victimology post, I apologize for that too, I was at work and hadn't the time to read and fix my post that I do now.) I'll give you the right of doubt, though. You got mad at me and posted the first thing that came to mind, wanting to take no prisoners. Being the wise guy you are, I'm sure that, after a good night of well deserved sleep, you'll notice you blew it out of proportion. -------------------- "Forty-five moments of perfection translated through a cautionary escape into the perils of the mundane, the inherent entropy in ultimate order, and the potential threats of eternal, unchecked apathy in civilization; all cloaked in musical expression so thoughtful, creative and forward thinking that almost a quarter-century later, few can even comprehend it, much less match it." (autothrall)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slaytanic
VoivodFan
Member # 28
|
posted July 27, 2005 11:15
quote:
Originally posted by Lyckantropen:
And I do apologise, Slay. I was a bit miffed, and flew off the handle.  But it's partially your fault! (Joking! Joking!) 
Bah. Three times bah. No need for apologies, after all, life would be much less fun without some eventual virtual fistfights. Anyway, you're right, so far we're speculating on the whole thing. Better thing to do is wait until the complete history comes to the surface. I'm surprised as well that this topic was not transferred to Tech Manip. -------------------- "Forty-five moments of perfection translated through a cautionary escape into the perils of the mundane, the inherent entropy in ultimate order, and the potential threats of eternal, unchecked apathy in civilization; all cloaked in musical expression so thoughtful, creative and forward thinking that almost a quarter-century later, few can even comprehend it, much less match it." (autothrall)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Emlyn K Helicopter
VoivodFan
Member # 44
|
posted July 27, 2005 13:37
quote:
Originally posted by Lyckantropen:
They've also arrested three other people in connection with that, and two other guys on a train for "acting suspiciously".
That used to be a Police euphemism for having an Irish accent. I guess now it branches out to any bugger with a tan and a rucksack. I'm coming to London next week, think I'll dust off my cheesecloth headscarf and practice my "alalalalalalala"'s. Just to see. -------------------- Der der der-der DER! Der der der-der DER! DER!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KnickerZohnonnof
VoivodFan
Member # 272
|
posted July 30, 2005 08:07
Been away, so not been keeping tracks, but here's my take on the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes:The police had a split second decision to make - suicide bomber or innocent man? Delay, and the former was true? Death and mayhem all over again. Put yourself in their shoes and tell me what you would do. I don't like what's happened, but think how the copper feels now having killed an innocent man, when all he was trying to do was keep the streets of London safe. I wouldn't be in his shoes precisely because of this scenario and I would suspect very few if any here would either, so we are in no position to criticise. -------------------- Hail Santa...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
