posted
Then you should not post comments like "What do you think went through his head?".
I mean really, it's all I can do to refrain from making a mean-spirited joke at the victim's expense......so....difficult....
A few random thoughts-
This incident will make their ongoing investigation much more difficult....and cut dwn on sales of bulky jackets, of course.
London's mayor blaming this death on the terrorists is a spin even the White House would be shamefaced to use. mabye, anyway.
I dont thik any capital charges will rise from this shooting- dismissals for certain, but not jailtime. Someone will find a memo saying that suspects were waering that kind of jacket or hiding explosives in their hair or something to make the shooting seem a tad less...outrageous.
Police wil be sure to announce themselves with a loudspeaker in the future. Here in the States, a few police raids have led to fatalaties on both sides from this (though usually in a raid on a house).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
We don't normally operate a shoot to kill policy in this country, but from the sounds of it making sure there's no central nervous system left to trigger a bomb which you are right next to seems like the only thing you dare do. If you we standing that close to someone you were sure was in posession of a bomb, how many shots would you take? And that the risk of a shoot to kill policy, you can't ask questions later. What of the non leathal restraint weapons in use or in development that we have heard of would stop a suspect pressing a button or not possibly cause the detination of the bomb the suspect maybe carrying. What if the bombers start carrying some sort of dead mans switch? Christ, what do we do then?
What the police somehow have to do is to appear under cover, but be able to blow that cover and make sure the suspect they are following knows that they are Police. How, I have no idea. Most loudspeakers I know of aren't easy to conceal.
As far as prosecution of the Police officers, is this much diffenent than a soldier acting on orders to shoot the enemy? The Police do have to operate where things are less clear cut, but a senoir officer would have given the orders to act, either directly, or by giving general orders about when to act. Deciding who was resposible for the death will be difficult, but justice must be seen to be done.
-------------------- Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of combating the forces of evil...prayer, fasting, good works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat leaden death, demon...
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"I really don't see why everyone's so surprised..."
Surprised? No. Enraged? Yes. Because this is exactly the kind of thing that civil liberties are there to prevent, and what happens when those rights are traded in for "security".
"If you we standing that close to someone you were sure was in posession of a bomb, how many shots would you take?"
Except, in this case, the police weren't sure, or they would have stopped him long before he ever reached the Tube station. Which then raises the question of how you would stop someone whom you suspect to be in possession of a bomb and is going to detonate it in a public place. I don't know the answer to that one, but I would think you don't wait until he gets there.
[ July 26, 2005, 04:36 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I dont think it's so much the tactics that cause shock as the overkill (no pun intended here). Unless the officers all fired at the same time, someone was just shooting a fatally injured suspect....in the head.
Still, we were not there and the officers may have been under orders to aim for the head if explosives were suspected- if (for instance) the guy stopped and turned suddenly or looked to be intentionally running for a crowd of people (to blow up from the cop's perspectives) there would have been cause for firing on him.
Who would want to be the cop that hesitated with a suspect and got a crowd of peditrians killed?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Then you should not post comments like "What do you think went through his head?".
I mean really, it's all I can do to refrain from making a mean-spirited joke at the victim's expense......so....difficult....
You misunderstand me. That is what someone - my wife - said to me in all innocence. Maybe I've got a fundamentally twisted mind but as outraged by I am by this scandal, I still couldn't help but have a certain thought (albeit one in very bad taste) occur to me. But this is a horrible, horrible thing that's happened.
I think your thought was only natural...besides, it's only human to find humor in the most dire of situations.
Still, you were wise to conceal your smirk from her....she does not know the power of the Darkside and all that.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
"As far as prosecution of the Police officers, is this much diffenent than a soldier acting on orders to shoot the enemy?"
Yes, it is. One of them is someone whose job it is to go into a war zone, and shoot at people clearly demarcated as "the other side". The other is someone blowing the head off a guy whom it's his job to protect.
If a soldier was walking down the street one day, saw someone he thought looked suspicious, then stalked the guy and shot him eight times in the head, and the guy turned out to be an innocent civilian, I'd say prosecute the crap out of the soldier.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't think there's such a thing as "overkill" in this situation.
That is, if your intention is to kill someone before they can kill others, then it doesn't matter particularly, from an ethical standpoint, whether you shoot them once, or a hundred times. The choice is whether or not to shoot in the first place.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Oh, sure, but you preferably don't make that choice at the last moment, when your shots have to be lethal.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And I'd say that anyone who is expected to be put in the kind of situation where such a decision is likely to be made should be capable of implementing it with some degree of precision.
posted
They were pretty precise though- their shots found their target and I've not heard of any stray shots or unintended casualties.
The real issue is weither the police were gung-ho to kill a terrorist or were they acting professionally and in a grim situation with tragic consequences.
Speaking of "prosecute the crap out of the soldier", two US soldiers are going on trial for having a cute contest as to which could use their attack dogs to scare the most prisoners into urinating/deficating themselves.
Two of the (reported) prisoners in-terror-gated were children, ages 10 and 14.
Looks like it'll be the ol' "My commanders knew/approved of this" line of crap.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if their commanders did know/approve of it. Which means they should both be prosecuted the crap out of.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree, but it's no defense for the soldiers. The official rules are that attack dogs can be used in interrogations (to scare prisoners) but have to have their muzzles on at all times. This trial revolves around two instances where a prisoner (not the two kids I mentioned) were bitten by attack dogs during questioning.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Okay then, but precision should imply the knowledge on the part of the shooter that he's already put one bullet in his target's brain, and that adding seven more would really be gilding the lily a little bit. . .
Printer-friendly view of this topic
