Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kie99 on July 21, 2005, 07:38:13 am
-
Bombs have gone off on the underground, and a bus has been blown up. No news link yet, but it's on the TV and Radio.
-
What?!
-
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1189833,00.html
Link
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4703777.stm
-
oh ****
-
When I first read this I was wondering what kind of strange timewarp brought this out 2 weeks after the bombings.
Looks like there are no casualties so far though.
EDIT : An eyewitness on the BBC is saying that the bomb went off and the person carrying the bomb simply ran away. Obviously doesn't sound like a major bomb in that case.
(Unless it's a biological of course but even that doesn't sound likely).
-
Could be a (hopefully botched) copycat job.
Sounds like it may be that the detonators went off and the bomb/s failed from what I can tell; could be that there was another cell out there connected with that off 2 weeks ago, and the police have cut off their access to the intended explosive with the previous raids.
no indications of casualties, so - fingers crossed - it doesn't seem as 'serious' in those terms as the earlier bombings.
-
Windows blown out on the bus but no casualties there apparently.
Both London Underground and the London Ambulance Service are saying that there are no casulaties too.
-
Seems to be failed detonators.
[q]Dummy explosions using detonators only have sparked the evacuation of three Tube stations and the closure of three lines, a BBC correspondent has said[/q]
Just in; backpack on the back top deck seat of the bus. Described as having a 'funny smell' and being split.
Does sound like detonators only; I can't help but wonder if someone (security services) actually deliberately duped whoever did this with dummy explosives. Perhaps not targeting specific individuals but subverting access to real explosives by allowing access to convincing fakes.
EDIT; 1 reported injury at Warren St, no details on nature of injury.
-
Or perhaps they just screwed up and didn't build their bombs properly.
-
Would surprise me. If they were caught after attempting the bombing they'd certainly face stiffer sentances.
Police are now saying one person was injured but they don't say how badly.
-
ITV news reported shooting at one station. The same station one person was injured at. Interesting.
It looks like this was, essentially, nothing. One station is already back in operation according to ITV.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Or perhaps they just screwed up and didn't build their bombs properly.
Indeed. You'd think they'd be able to build at least one, though... it's a very strange scenario (a good one, if no-one is killed or seriously hurt by it). Co-ordinated within something like less than an hour, which implies some degree of organisation.
So far seems to be a 'dodged the bullet' scenario, anyways. Hopefully it'll stay that way.
EDIT; re shooting - IMO it would seem more likely that was the sound of detonators going off. Didn't ITV also report a bomber being shot by police marksman at Canary Wharf during the previous attack as well?
-
Well in fairness it's thought the nail bomb (if it was one) detonated successfully. So they might have made one real bomb.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Well in fairness it's thought the nail bomb (if it was one) detonated successfully. So they might have made one real bomb.
I read that the nail bomb was more likely to have been the noise of the detonators. Think it's in the sky news link up at the top.
EDIT; bit unclear as to whether it means the shots, nail bomb or both by that.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
EDIT; re shooting - IMO it would seem more likely that was the sound of detonators going off. Didn't ITV also report a bomber being shot by police marksman at Canary Wharf during the previous attack as well?
Probably but armed police just entered college hospital.
-
Reports on the beeb that the tube stations had 3 dummy nailbombs (lookalikes with no explosives); this is from the pager messages of tube staff.
-
Bloody hell, this is awful! Why has London been repeatedly attacked!? These Terrorist bastards must be eliminated! They must be eliminated in revenge for these attacks...for the previous attacks...and for knocking SG:A of the Air down here!
-
Originally posted by vyper
Probably but armed police just entered college hospital.
Threat or suspect, though?
Latter would seem more likely if they're covering the area; seems to be a 'security alert', possibly think a suicide(?) bomber is there (injured by minor detonation, possibly carrying a secondary bomb)
-
*sigh* here we go again..
-
Seems like London dodged the bullet, indeed. I do hope they've got the bastards for interogation.
-
Apparently they've just arrested some guy in Whitehall. Might be connected or might just be some guy who wasn't quick enough about following the police's orders.
-
And Blair just said a whole load of nothing. Oh, and why in the hell were the BBC forced to turn their cameras off outside No.10?
-
That was a little odd. Unless they were moving everyone away after the Whitehall thing.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
That was a little odd. Unless they were moving everyone away after the Whitehall thing.
That was over by the time it happened. Very very odd. Reeks of a little information-control.
-
http://www.police.uk/content/viewarticle.asp?xslfile=~xsl~transform_article.xsl&xmlfile=~_content~xml~news~MPS-BSW-20.xml
Some more information, straight from the horses mouth in this case.
And for the visually oriented: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4704069.stm
-
Thankfully, it looks like a whole lot of nothing. Four bombs and no casualties suggests that this is the work of amateurs. Personally, my guess is that some ******* got inspired by the London bombings, then tried to cobble together his own attack with little time, limited resources and no knowledge.
-
I was in London all day Tuesday... :nervous:
My guess is copycat - it looks like they didn't have a clue about bombmaking.
-
Or simply a poor batch of explosives. It seems the bombs were intended to explode in exactly the same manner as the bombs 2 weeks ago, but, whilst to primer charge went off with a small explosion, the maion charge failed to detonate for some reason.
My own thoughts are that they were trying to build up a momentum of attacking one city, the more often they succeed, the more recruitment. However, this may well have backfired on them at a fatal level, since this was a complete cock-up on a military level, it caused some disruption, but we've had a bit of practice at these disruptions before :)
Better still, I would say it is likely that one or more of the intended suicide bombers will be captured, in a way it is urgent that we do, since these people really have nothing left to live for now.
-
Except that all reports I've seen indicate that these bombs were planted and left. Not that it rules out suicide bombing, but it does eliminate the need for there to have been as many bombers as there were bombs.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Except that all reports I've seen indicate that these bombs were planted and left. Not that it rules out suicide bombing, but it does eliminate the need for there to have been as many bombers as there were bombs.
I've seen at least 2 reports indicating that the bombs exploded whilst still in the possesion of the would=be-bombers.
-
And that one of them ran like a biatch when the people chased him.
-
Indeed, not afraid of dying in the fiery speed of a bomb, but a little bit touchy about being ripped limb from limb by hordes of angry commuters. A threat that London Underground Staff face on a daily basis.
Who's afraid now running-boy? ;)
-
I'd really love 5 minute alone with one of them, just to introduce their head to a variety of objects - I don't own a baseball bat, but would buy one specially for the occasion...
-
Be British about it, use a cricket bat.
-
In actuality, I would probably be more Japanese about it - there would be something satisfying about using a katana on one of those guys, or better still on one of the people that trained them. :mad2:
-
Be Saudi. Shove a pole topped with pesto and spicy peppers up their rectum.
-
Charming.
-
The bad thing about it is that it happened while security was, I assume, on full alert because of the recent bombing, which shows that no matter what you do, if someone wants to blow up something, he can, no matter how many policemen and others you'll deploy...
-
Death by Mau Mau..... :nervous:
-
Originally posted by vyper
Charming.
Old el Paso makes dinners exciting!
-
Originally posted by Nico
The bad thing about it is that it happened while security was, I assume, on full alert because of the recent bombing, which shows that no matter what you do, if someone wants to blow up something, he can, no matter how many policemen and others you'll deploy...
That's because it's not a matter of policing, it's a matter of intelligence - and I mean real hard work (not throwing ID cards on everyone and installing the telescreens!). Unfortunately the current funding and strategy go towards high visibility policing and near-fascist law making, to say nothing of even higher visibility warfare on a distant front.
In other words, we were bombed because the security forces (civiland military) are being used as a smoke screen for our government complete and utter ineptitude in handling the threat we face.
Terrorism leads to failure, but only if the subject of that terrorism stands strong in their beliefs, their ideals and their values. We stand for freedom, democracy and self determination.
What are we if we surrender even a fraction of that?
What are we fighting for if we don't have these things in full?
How are we different from the enemy - if we become exactly what we hate?
-
you could always go American on there asses and play loud noises while there trying to sleep, or mishandle there holy book.
-
An open society is always vunerable; freedom is never free, but the alternative is worse.
To be fair, it's hard to know what the security services could have done (not with respect to inflammatory government policy, which has totally failed to address the root causes of terrorism in a meaningful or beneficial way). You, me, anyone here could probably organize and perform an attack if we so wished; simply because we don't live (yet?) in a totalitarian state.
"Those who would sacrifice a little Liberty for more Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - it's still the most appropriate, valid quote you can use.
-
I think this incident is extremely interesting. I'm very curious as to who is found to be responsible, why all 4 bombs failed, etc.
-
Since it happened exactly 2 weeks after the first bombings, at almost the exact same time of day, with exactly the same targets, I would think it's some ****er trying to piggyback on the emotional effect of the first bombings, because that's all they can do - they can't even properly kill people, which is a somewhat crucial component of being a terrorist.
"Hey Joe, does damn Londoners sure got screwed. Let's build ourselves a bomb and do the same"
The sheer fact that the date and implementation were significant distinguished these bombings from previous ones (9/11, Madrid, Bali, Nairobi embassy etc) which happened on non-significant dates. That is to say, these were for image while the real ones were for practical utility.
-
I don't think 9/11 was an insignificant date.
9/11 = 911 = Emergency Number
-
Not in other countries it isn't. It was also the date on which the US sponsored a coup in Chile and installed Pinochet, but as far as I know the 9/11 attacks were not carried out by Chileans or anyone with explicit sympathy towards them. What I mean is that the date was insignificant in regards to the ideological mindset of the people who perpetrated it (assuming you believe it was al Queda and not someone else)
-
wasn't that the aneversery of the Oslo Isreal failed peace thingy?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Since it happened exactly 2 weeks after the first bombings, at almost the exact same time of day, with exactly the same targets, I would think it's some ****er trying to piggyback on the emotional effect of the first bombings, because that's all they can do - they can't even properly kill people, which is a somewhat crucial component of being a terrorist.
"Hey Joe, does damn Londoners sure got screwed. Let's build ourselves a bomb and do the same"
The sheer fact that the date and implementation were significant distinguished these bombings from previous ones (9/11, Madrid, Bali, Nairobi embassy etc) which happened on non-significant dates. That is to say, these were for image while the real ones were for practical utility.
I dunno; what would be more effective in terrorism terms - 2 attacks seperated by months, or by 2 weeks. To me the latter would be more effective in spreading panic, especially as the first set of attacks singularily failed to panic people.
-
[color=66ff00]The thing that bothers me is that something like a small fertilizer bomb is both easy to make and that the materials are easy to get.
They're also pretty reliable from what I know unless you do something remarkably stupid and use the wrong kind of fertilizer.
Either way this affair reeks of incompetence which is not what these guys are known for.
[/color]
-
We'll probably find out once the bombs are analysed; although that wouldn't rule out some group just nicking the previous attackers (degraded) spare bombs, I guess.
-
Police just shot some guy 5 times (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm) at Stockwell tube station.
Sounds like they may have caught one of them.
Apparently they've also surrounded a mosque in East London too. They may have wind of another one too then.
-
FIVE times. I mean - you have a man on the ground, about four cops on top of him - FIVE TIMES? I want to hear the full story hear - and I don't want Tony Blair telling us we shouldn't know for our own good.
As an aside any link about that mosque thing?
-
Seems like the mosque was due to a suspect package which turned out to be a false alarm and they've lefted the cordon.
As for shooting the guy, seems like the smartest thing to do if the guy was a suicide bomber. The BBC site now says that an eyewitness reports that they guy had a bomb on him.
I do want to hear the full story too though.
-
[color=66ff00]He ran onto a packed train after they warned him did he not?
Assuming he was carrying explosives I'd want to make sure he couldn't arm/detonate when cornered.
Still, they should state what happened if only to stop needless speculation and criticism (assuming it's not warranted of course).
[/color]
-
Whoever it was, it's confirmed that they were NOT one of yesterdays bombers, apparently.
-
Plus we pay their god damned wages, and we elect half of them - and we're fairly intelligent adults who deserve the truth rather than what they think we can handle. From the 7th July every bit of news we've had has been spoon fed to us from Downing Street or the Met. No investigative journalism whatsoever.
-
That's concerned me as well Vyper, apparently, someone was shot in Canary Wharf as well on July 7th, but for some reason nothing more was said about it after the first couple of reports.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
That's concerned me as well Vyper, apparently, someone was shot in Canary Wharf as well on July 7th, but for some reason nothing more was said about it after the first couple of reports.
I know someone from uni who works in Canary Wharf; and I'm pretty sure I'd have heard on the grapevine if that particular story was true.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
...they can't even properly kill people, which is a somewhat crucial component of being a terrorist.
You're completely wrong here, man. You don't need to kill ANYone to be an effective terrorist. All you have to do is generate terror. And in that light, this second round of bombings - failed as it may have been - was more successful than the first round.
Originally posted by Bobboau
wasn't that the aneversery of the Oslo Isreal failed peace thingy?
Nope, September 13th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords).
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
You're completely wrong here, man. You don't need to kill ANYone to be an effective terrorist. All you have to do is generate terror. And in that light, this second round of bombings - failed as it may have been - was more successful than the first round.
Actually no.
The general outlook in the UK seems to be the exact opposite in fact. It might change if there is a third attempt but at the moment the view seems more like the terrorists shot their wad with the first bombing and are now desperately trying to come up with something else because at the moment they've got nothing.
Not to mention the fact that like in Israel everyone over here is used to bombings and very few are letting it disrupt their lives.
-
People seem to be making an effort not to be scared or terrified but to almost put themselves right into the 'firing line', just as a big **** you to these terrorists. Angry, not scared, I think (at least from a perspective hundreds of miles away).
-
Yeah, the media is making more a scare story out of it than the actual public.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm
-
Well, if the media is focusing on the "good stuff" of people reacting in panic, regardless of it not representing what's actually happening on the ground, I can certainly understand that. And people's reactions of "You don't scare us, and we aren't gonna change our lifestyle because of your actions" is a lot more common than you might think - it happens in Israel, it happened in NY, and now in London.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm
I heard that. Aint't that gonna cause fun?
-
Looks like it's time to break out with some good old racial profiling. :rolleyes:
-
It's tragic but I STILL don't understand why he ran away...
-
Exactly. Reports say that the man was first challenged outside the tube station, ran inside, jumped over the ticket barrier, ran down the escalator to the train, was challenged again as he got onto the train and then was finally wrestled to the ground and shot 5 times.
Now considering that one eyewitness has described seeing the guy wearing a bomb belt it's obvious that you can't trust eyewitness reports but even if only half of the things I describe are accurate I think most of us would still have formed the opinion that he was a suicide bomber and shot him.
As for racial profiling the guy isn't even black or asian. I know the police can be racist but I'd expect them to be able to tell the difference between a whitish-skinned brazilian and an asian man.
-
Thing is, though I hate to use the term because it sounds like an insult rather than an observation, if you are going to expect attacks like in Israel, then you can expects the police to respond like the policing forces in Israel, running towards a train full of people when told to stop, considering the current climate around here, is a surefire way to get shot. Alas, this isn't the Wild West comics where it's all man-to-man on your feet, facing each other. As for shooting him when he was down, well, if I were a policeman and thought the man I had just brought down was a Suicide Bomber with a live bomb on his back, I'd probably have done the same thing considering his behaviour. We train our Police very well on the whole, but this is a whole new ball game, and these are going to be the rules.
n a way the Terrorists aren't winning in the UK, they are helping the government to start pushing through acts that will do far more to damage our way of life than these attacks have. So in many ways they are assisting the government's agenda.
-
In other words they are winning Flip - they're helping to destroy our freedoms.
Besides you don't shoot a man five times in the head to kill him, you shoot him five times in the head to make sure no one can operate on him and save him. No?
-
Originally posted by vyper
Besides you don't shoot a man five times in the head to kill him, you shoot him five times in the head to make sure no one can operate on him and save him. No?
What's the difference?
-
Because one bullet to the head can be operated on, and sometimes a man can be brought back from certain death. Putting five bullets in his head is rather more final - considering there won't be a head to operate on.
Edit: And more to the point it just shows sheer bloody viciousness.
-
or maybe he was just trying to kill him.
-
Am I the only one who sees you only need to shoot someone once in the head to "kill" them? What was he going to do - use his remaining minute electrical impulses to trigger a bomb?
Edit: Which is actually all beside the point. The guy was innocent of the crime he was shot for.
And please, no pish about "if he had nothing to hide he shouldn't have ran". That's like saying I should be perfectly happy with the police being able to stop and search me on a whim because I have nothing to hide. It's the cowards way out of defending freedom and democracy.
-
they didn't know he was innocent, all they knew is they suspected him of beeing a suicide bomber, and he ran into a train when they tried to stop him.
now was it an automatic weapon, or a semi-automatic one?
-
[q]they didn't know he was innocent, all they knew is they suspected him of beeing a suicide bomber[/q]
That's a pretty tenuous basis to take a man's life.
-
..and he ran into a train when they tried to stop him.
-
No more tenuous than the evidence you're using to decide that the police acted in bad faith.
Why rush to condemnation? The police are investigating the matter. Why the need to complain about the police making snap decisions on dodgy evidence and then doing the same bloody thing yourselves?
-
my point exactly :).
-
Originally posted by vyper
Am I the only one who sees you only need to shoot someone once in the head to "kill" them? What was he going to do - use his remaining minute electrical impulses to trigger a bomb?
Edit: Which is actually all beside the point. The guy was innocent of the crime he was shot for.
And please, no pish about "if he had nothing to hide he shouldn't have ran". That's like saying I should be perfectly happy with the police being able to stop and search me on a whim because I have nothing to hide. It's the cowards way out of defending freedom and democracy.
A single shot will not necessarily destroy the brain; the actual purpose of shoot-to-kill is to do that, although I don't think as many as 5 would be required. The issue is not just killing the bomber (the decision to fire would only take place in the certainty that the target was a bomber, at least for a legal shooting; this will doubtless be part of the CPS investigation), but to rapidly and completely paralyse them. I also believe handgun bullets are not as effective at killing as higher calibre weapons.
As it stands we don't know the situation that occured or the 'rules of engagement' with regards to armed police deployment. IMO there are 2 fundamental questions, neither of which have really been answered - 1/ why did he run, and how (i.e. in a suspicious manner)? and 2/ did the police identify themselves appropriately?
What you also have to bear in mind, I think, is that if he had been a bomber, this would have been hailed as the right response. So to me the issue to do with police culpability is not shoot-to-kill, but how suspects are identified and police are identified to them.
@Bob; it was said to be an 'automatic pistol' by the witness. Standard SO19 issue is the Glock 17, which is technically a semi-auto, and that'd probably be the weapon used. (the alternative to an automatic pistol being a revolver)
-
Surely, if we can admit there are such problems in identifying such an idividual then we can also admit that the current shoot-to-kill policy is too high risk?
-
well it could make a bit of a diference, something that puts out ten rounds per second you could excuse fireing off 5 rounds into someone. though, if the guy was trying to make sure he was dead he simply might have not realised weather or not he had made any fatal shots in the frantic situation. as has been said, we simply don't know.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Surely, if we can admit there are such problems in identifying such an idividual then we can also admit that the current shoot-to-kill policy is too high risk?
That would depend upon exactly what steps the police went through when identifying the victim as being a threat.
-
Was it reported anywhere that poliece shot him in the head 5 times?? AFAIK all the reports simply stated that he was shot 5 times, without specifying where. I was the one who brought up the shoot-in-the-head deal...
-
Now that you mention it, no. Common consensus is it was the head because (it's been suggested; and contradicted by one expert consultant on the telly) that chest shots could detonate a device if there was one. It's also been suggested there were 2, not 5 shots by another witness.
-
Look - it just doesn't cut it. An innocent man is dead, at the hands of the police. (Yes, I say innocent because I still believe anyone is innocent until proven guilty.)
-
Except the police who shot him of course. They're already guilty in your mind at least, right?
-
It sounds like fear of the unknown, to me. What does a terrorist look like? How do they act? All people really know is that they act 'different' - and human history has a long list of times when 'different' people were persecuted for no other crime than being different.
-
And where did I say that? I said it's unacceptable to unload five rounds into a mans head. I then got into a debate over the nature of current security policy. Where exactly did I state the individual officer was guilty of anything bar excessive force (which can be pinned on his superiors if you so wish)?
Edit: And for the record, as far as I'm concerned the police are nothing but a tool of opression that just happens to protect us at the same time. Since the days when the police first gave up the right to strike they've started seeing themselves as "better" than the average man in the street.
-
Well, you are holding them to higher standards than the average man on the street, aren't you?
I mean, we know nothing about the events prior to, and during this shooting. We have the barest facts; a house was under surveillance, this guy left it in (reportedly) suspicious clothing, the police challenged him, he ran despite repeated warnings, and then he was shot between 2-5 times.
We don't know how the police identified themselves, exactly how or if he was restrained, how he (the victim) was dressed (specifically RE: the eyewitness who said he saw a bomb vest), what the police thought was going on in the house he left, the exact number of rounds (eyewitnesses vary between 2 and 5), how the victim reacted to being challenged and if he acknowledged they were police officers, and soforth.
And it may be that it was a serious, unlawful crime. But I'm not going to hang someone until the facts are known; a (real) suicide bomber is a literal 'kill or be killed' scenario, and I want to know exactly what went on and whether it was sufficient for those police to legitimately believe this was that scenario. That's why we have an independent group with the purpose of investigating exactly this sort of scenario.
As it stands your making the assumption that this police officer is a cold blooded, trigger happy murderer without any actual evidence that would support that; because regardless of policy, it's still the officers choice to pull the trigger.
-
No I'm making the assumption he was wrong to put five bullets in a man's head. Beyond that I'm assuming nothing. Even if we can agree it was right to kill the individual, five bullets can still be argued as excessive force.
[q]Well, you are holding them to higher standards than the average man on the street, aren't you?[/q]
No, actually, I'm trying to hold them to the same standards.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, you are holding them to higher standards than the average man on the street, aren't you?
They weren't deadly force, though. Somebody goes waving around a loaded gun and shooting people, I'm going to watch them more carefully than someone who just runs away.
-
Originally posted by vyper
No I'm making the assumption he was wrong to put five bullets in a man's head. Beyond that I'm assuming nothing. Even if we can agree it was right to kill the individual, five bullets can still be argued as excessive force.
It's not even confirmed it was 5 bullets; another eyewitness put it as 2. Given the nature of the incident, it's very likely either eyewitness could have miscounted; perhaps through shock, or echoing in the station.
Originally posted by vyper
No, actually, I'm trying to hold them to the same standards.
Then innocent until guilty would apply, and we're only just - in terms of public knowledge - at the evidence gathering stage.
Also, if you were an armed policeman (amongst a reported 20 others, IMO reducing the chances of being mistaken for a lone lunatic) chasing a suspected suicide bomber, who had left a suspect premises, was wearing unusually bulky clothing (confirmed by all eyewitnesses so far), and who fled into a station when challenged (and continued to flee, towards a train - which of course was considered a particular at-risk target given recent events)... what would you do?
Bearing in mind the only way to stop a suicide bomber is immediate incapacitation.
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
They weren't deadly force, though. Somebody goes waving around a loaded gun and shooting people, I'm going to watch them more carefully than someone who just runs away.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but.....
Loaded gun - or suspected firearm - would be handled under shoot-to-stop policy as a last resort. It's a different paradigm to a suspected suicide bomber who would be able to detonate their vest even if shot in the chest. Again, the question here (in the investigation) will likely be how valid was that suspicion, and was it adequate for the shooting.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Besides you don't shoot a man five times in the head to kill him, you shoot him five times in the head to make sure no one can operate on him and save him. No?
Originally posted by vyper
Because one bullet to the head can be operated on, and sometimes a man can be brought back from certain death. Putting five bullets in his head is rather more final - considering there won't be a head to operate on.
Edit: And more to the point it just shows sheer bloody viciousness.
Originally posted by vyper
Which is actually all beside the point. The guy was innocent of the crime he was shot for.
Originally posted by vyper
Look - it just doesn't cut it. An innocent man is dead, at the hands of the police. (Yes, I say innocent because I still believe anyone is innocent until proven guilty.)
Originally posted by vyper
as far as I'm concerned the police are nothing but a tool of opression that just happens to protect us at the same time.
you quite obviusly don't like the cops.
"No I'm making the assumption he was wrong to put five bullets in a man's head. Beyond that I'm assuming nothing. Even if we can agree it was right to kill the individual, five bullets can still be argued as excessive force."
but your first makeing the assumption that there were five bullets put into the guys head, I beleive the facts we know are, he is dead from 2-5 gunshots one or more of wich was to the head. and as for being exesive force, if you don't know the situation you can't know.
-
What bothers me is that if the incident is considered "justified", then it means that things are basically running on fear. If a police officer is suspicious of a person because of their clothing, and they run, it's fine for the officer to assume they're a terrorist and shoot them?
Maybe they shoplifted some $50 item, or threw a straw wrapper next to the "X pounds penalty for littering" sign, that doesn't seem to warrant death to me.
There's other factors that could be involved here, but IMHO this indicates that some kind of policy change needs to be made - wasn't there some big hubaloo about new, non-fatal methods of incapacitating people?
-
[q]you quite obviusly don't like the cops.[/q]
There is a difference between not trusting and not liking.
[q]and as for being exesive force, if you don't know the situation you can't know.[/q]
I think we can rely on common sense to know that shooting a man five times in the head is excessive force. We are still allowed to think for ourselves... for now.
[q]was wearing unusually bulky clothing (confirmed by all eyewitnesses so far)[/q]
Who you yourself just said could be mistaken due to the shock they were suffering at the situation unfolding in front of them.
This all comes down to the important point that I have made before. Freedom is not free, and if you want a free society you must accept the risks that come with it - that includes not being able to shoot everyone you're afraid is a suicide bomer.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Now that you mention it, no. Common consensus is it was the head because (it's been suggested; and contradicted by one expert consultant on the telly) that chest shots could detonate a device if there was one. It's also been suggested there were 2, not 5 shots by another witness.
Yeeaaahhh... don't assume. It makes an ASS out of U and ME.
What kind of shooting was it? Was the guy actively on the run when he was shot? If so, it bloody unlikely that he was shot 5 times in the head, or even that the police were aiming for his head, as they'd be stupidly ignorant to think they could hit somebody's head when he was running.
Was he shot by one police officer 5 times, or shot once by 5 individual officers?
See what I'm getting at? There's a TON of details nobody's being told, details that would clear up this muddle.
Anyway (http://english.people.com.cn/200507/25/eng20050725_198036.html):
Massoud Shadjareh of the Islamic Human Rights Commission said the killing was a direct consequence of British police officers being sent to Israel to receive training on how to prevent suicide bombings.
"To give license to people to shoot to kill just like that, on the basis of suspicion, is very frightening," Azzam Tamimi of the Muslim Association of Britain said.
The difference between what happened in London and what Israeli security forces' orders are is that Israeli forces are under strict orders to use lethal force ONLY when positive identification as a terrorist is made. Suspects are not shot on sight - that's a ridiculous modus operandi. This Massoud character nicely makes you think from what he said that British officers were trained by Israel to shoot-to-kill on basis of suspicion. Nice subtle twist of facts.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Who you yourself just said could be mistaken due to the shock they were suffering at the situation unfolding in front of them.
But so far there are multiple eyewitness accounts that are clear and concur on the clothing of the victim; specifically bulky and unusually heavy for this time of year. Whereas there are specific differences on the number of shots fired, for example.
Originally posted by vyper
This all comes down to the important point that I have made before. Freedom is not free, and if you want a free society you must accept the risks that come with it - that includes not being able to shoot everyone you're afraid is a suicide bomer.
If it is a real suicide bomber, do you think the police should shoot-to-kill with the inherent purpose of ensuring that bomber cannot detonate their bomb? Or shoot to injure, leaving the possibility open the bomber can probably still trigger it at any point?
-
[q]
If it is a real suicide bomber, do you think the police should shoot-to-kill with the inherent purpose of ensuring that bomber cannot detonate their bomb? Or shoot to injure, leaving the possibility open the bomber can probably still trigger it at any point?[/q]
I believe if there is even the slightest doubt, you should shoot to injure. I'd be willing to take that risk as a passenger on the train given the alternative eventually leads to a terror state, or at least the abandonment of the ideas we're fighting for.
-
Originally posted by vyper
And please, no pish about "if he had nothing to hide he shouldn't have ran". That's like saying I should be perfectly happy with the police being able to stop and search me on a whim because I have nothing to hide. It's the cowards way out of defending freedom and democracy.
DUH!...please, spare me the melodramatics. I for one wouldn't have nothing against searches. Would I be perfectly happy? probably not, but I wouldn't be sour either.
I get the feeling that you really hate the police, don't you?
What did they do? Confiscated your stash?
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
What bothers me is that if the incident is considered "justified", then it means that things are basically running on fear. If a police officer is suspicious of a person because of their clothing, and they run, it's fine for the officer to assume they're a terrorist and shoot them?
Maybe they shoplifted some $50 item, or threw a straw wrapper next to the "X pounds penalty for littering" sign, that doesn't seem to warrant death to me.
There's other factors that could be involved here, but IMHO this indicates that some kind of policy change needs to be made - wasn't there some big hubaloo about new, non-fatal methods of incapacitating people?
Then don't run!
I would rather pay X punds or spend a night in jail than end up dead.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
The difference between what happened in London and what Israeli security forces' orders are is that Israeli forces are under strict orders to use lethal force ONLY when positive identification as a terrorist is made. Suspects are not shot on sight - that's a ridiculous modus operandi. This Massoud character nicely makes you think from what he said that British officers were trained by Israel to shoot-to-kill on basis of suspicion. Nice subtle twist of facts.
What about that girl that was brutally executed? Or some otehr killings (like running people over with a bluldozer)?
Looks like a lot of your soldiers aren't following the directives than...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
DUH!...please, spare me the melodramatics. I for one wouldn't have nothing against searches. Would I be perfectly happy? probably not, but I wouldn't be sour either.
I get the feeling that you really hate the police, don't you?
What did they do? Confiscated your stash?
Ah, so we should replace melodramatics with cheap quips that completely avoid addressing the point?
I'll make this as clear as day for you - I don't hate the police, I hate the way they are being used and the way the laws they upload are being used to oppress the people of this country more and more every day.
I don't hate the police, I fear what they are becoming.
Edit: And for the love of God use the edit button.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Then don't run!
I would rather pay X punds or spend a night in jail than end up dead.
Well then you have a pretty strange concept of freedom, liberty and democracy. Not to mention justice.
The issue shouldn't arise in the first place - you shouldn't have to make that choice. Oh, and it's Pounds.
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]
If it is a real suicide bomber, do you think the police should shoot-to-kill with the inherent purpose of ensuring that bomber cannot detonate their bomb? Or shoot to injure, leaving the possibility open the bomber can probably still trigger it at any point?[/q]
I believe if there is even the slightest doubt, you should shoot to injure. I'd be willing to take that risk as a passenger on the train given the alternative eventually leads to a terror state, or at least the abandonment of the ideas we're fighting for.
I think the issue here is that 'slightest doubt', and I'm waiting for the full facts before making a personal judgement as to whether the lack of that doubt was valid. Procedure would not allow a 'legal' shooting if there was doubt, and the crux of the investigation will be as to whether that doubt existed anyways, and whether - given the events of the day, which we do not have full details of - it was reasonable to make that assumption of an immenent attack.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Then don't run!
I would rather pay X punds or spend a night in jail than end up dead.
But in that case the guy wouldn't have any clue the police thought he was a terrorist. He'd probably be more worried that they knew about the crime he did commit, rather than trying to figure out which one they thought he committed.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Well then you have a pretty strange concept of freedom, liberty and democracy. Not to mention justice.
The issue shouldn't arise in the first place - you shouldn't have to make that choice. Oh, and it's Pounds.
No, I have a very HEALTHY concpet of freedom, liberty and democracy (b.t.w. - freedom and liberty are the same thing :) )
You see, there is no real freedom or democracy - as long as the world is run by idiots and you have idots running all over, you will NEVER be truly free or will you ever experience real democracy.
I'm on the side of the police. There is too much crime in the world anyway, and they would need MORE, not less freedom to step on crime.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
No, I have a very HEALTHY concpet of freedom, liberty and democracy (b.t.w. - freedom and liberty are the same thing :) )
You see, there is no real freedom or democracy - as long as the world is run by idiots and you have idots running all over, you will NEVER be truly free or will you ever experience real democracy.
I'm on the side of the police. There is too much crime in the world anyway, and they would need MORE, not less freedom to step on crime.
Technically, if the world is full of idiots and is run by idiots, it's a perfect democracy; wholly representative.
Police power is the same as any governmental power; it's a series of checks and balances, security versus individual rights. If you unbalance this, you can end up with either anarchy or dictatorship; giving the police power without checks can destroy the basic presumption of innocence essential for a free and fair justice system - the police become the criminals.
This shooting case is an extreme case, as it's the only situation that could have warranted direct excecution whilst still being legal. The issue here is whether the police have adequately protected the public from themselves - were the procedures followed really adequate to justify the presumption of guilt? Most crucially will be - did the victim know these armed police were police?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
No, I have a very HEALTHY concpet of freedom, liberty and democracy
Then why are you so eager to hand your rights and perhaps even your life over the authorities?