[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.

[TrashMan]

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?

[TrashMan]

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.

[TrashMan]

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...

[vyper]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[WMCoolmon]

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.

[TrashMan]

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.

[aldo_14]

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?

[vyper]

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?