No "padded coat"...no turnstile jumping

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey, look: When poeple are frightened, it strikes me as wise to not give cause for further alarm. Right or wrong doesn't enter into it. Civil rights don't enter into it. You just don't go around in any manner that adds to an adrenalin rush.

I'm not saying I like that situation. But, I do want to live through it.

The guy apparently (as a Brazilian) looked somewhat like those who've been blowing things up. "Somewhat" is all it takes. Since his visa had expired (if other reports are factual) he tried to escape, ignoring commands to halt. Again, I'm assuming there was some variant of "Stop! Police!" or whatever. When he fled, he caused the adrenalin rush in armed people who were scared of the possibilities.

Guess what? It's gonna happen again, somewhere. Bet on it.

Art
 
It's gonna happen again, somewhere. Bet on it.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Its going to happen a lot more and the government will always claim there was good reason to do it. The sheep, eager to always remain safe, will accept this at face value.


Matt Payne,

You are asking me to show a reference to the fact that the London police have accepted responsibility for this action? Are you serious? Do you really not know they have accepted responsibility and apologized already?
 
Matt Payne,

You are asking me to show a reference to the fact that the London police have accepted responsibility for this action? Are you serious? Do you really not know they have accepted responsibility and apologized already?
Click to expand...

Sigh.

Again, no. I'm saying that only the relatives have said that the police have admitted that he wasn't wearing a bulky jacket. the police and eyewitnesses said he was.
 
I'm assuming there was some variant of "Stop! Police!" or whatever. When he fled, he caused the adrenalin rush in armed people who were scared of the possibilities.
Click to expand...

Being in the UK for years, the poor sod may have assumed that the cops were echoing that famous unarmed police cry: "Stop! Or I'll say 'stop' again!" :(
 
No Matt, what I am saying is that the police have apologized and accepted responsibility for the death. I am not talking about the coat involved.

They know they screwed up, and I don't see why anyone wants to claim otherwise if they themselves are admitting this.

I realize the police have a tough job and have to make split second decisions where life hangs in the balance. So do I, everyday. But I think giving them a free ride when something like this happens only encourages them to make similar mistakes in the future.

I would rather be killed with an enemy's bomb than shot down by my own police.
 
LG, I'm less worried about governmental excusing than I am about the fear on the part of those at some scene, "armed and dangerous". Those guys are THERE; "government" is off somewhere in an office. Overall, my point is that I want to live through some sort of encounter--or not have an encounter in the first place.

The odds of my being where some terr is gonna do his thing are a lot less than some sort of involvement with Established Order. Self defense includes playing the odds.

Art
 
and declared that they can shoot to kill just on suspicion. And that suspicion arising not from reliable intelligence or anything like that, but from just how someone may behave somewhere.
Click to expand...

You know what? I can shoot someone on suspicion, based soley on how they are behaving toward me. If a man rushes at me screaming with his arm upraised and something in his hand, I can blow him away and I've committed no crime if it later turns out he had a piece of fruit.

And if I think someone is a suicide bomber, based on their actions, appearance and behavior, I will kill them.

Also, "shoot to kill" is redundant. Come on, people.
 
LG, please read my posts again.

I'm not giving the London police a free ride, and I don't see anyone here that is. That's what I asked you to cite.

But neither am I going to wholeheartedly condemn them and believe everything that the relatives of the poor dead Brazilian guy say. That's also what I said.

Did the guy probably seal his own fate by running? Yeah, probably. But running ought not be a capital offense.

These are bad times, and unfortunately we shouldn't be too surprised when some innocents get hurt by the good guys as well as the bad.
 
Matt...

I did not address any of my initial comments directly at you. I was simply making observations. The observations were not limited to this single thread even.

There have been several threads on this subject, and some people have made comments to the effect that the Brazilian guy should not have run, should not have been wearing a coat, should not have been in the vicinity of known terrorists,etc. All of that may be true, but none of it is a capital offense, and none of it should be used to try to make excuses for mistakes the police made, but some people have done just that (not you, Matt, and not really even in this thread so far, so relax).

I am not going to look all this stuff, I have read it, and you can too with the help of the search function, and I don't mean that disrespectfully.

As far as not giving the London PD a free ride, what exactly would you do if you were able to do something about this?
 
In this and related threads, I have seen excellent points on both sides of the discussion and information supporting both sides. More importantly, divergent attitudes and philosophies have been expressed about this incident that I would love to explore.

What standards should apply to the police (or government or "authorities") in this incident? Should the standards applied to the police (or government or "authorities") be different than the standards applied to common citizens? If so why and with what differences?

What underlying philosophy should govern? Should it be the philosophy of the individual reflected at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence? Or should it be the philosophy of a society reflected at the beginning of the Constitution? When the two philosophies are in conflict, which should prevail?
 
I think the government should adopt a "First, do no harm to its own citizens" policy.

In other words, don't shoot people in coats just because they have dark hair and are not behaving the way the government wishes they would.

I do not expect the police to be able to defend me against terrorists all the time. If we take the subway system in NYC as an example, tens of thousands of people access it daily through many subway stations. There is no way to protect something that size, and with that many people using it. I don't expect the government to be able to do that, and I don't want them to waste my tax dollars trying to do something impossible.

Unfortunately, I think most people do want the government to do "whatever it takes" to keep them safe, and if that means an occassional sheep takes a bullet, they are fine with that.

I honestly don't think we want to live in the type of society where terrorism is not possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top