Shoot To Kill Policy Correct?

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp



On what do you base your conclusion regarding 'normal' behaviour when confronted with a gun?

Because I've had a rifle point in my face, thank you very much, not a pleasant experience.

You ask most people if someone pulls a gun out and points it at you, what do you do?



The movies?



No real life,


Well I had a shotgun shoved in my face once and I told the guy to put it away. Does that prove anything ? No

Does your experience prove anything? No

Should abnormal but harmless behaviour equal a death sentence? No




posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
Well I had a shotgun shoved in my face once and I told the guy to put it away. Does that prove anything ? No

Yeah you didnt run now did you?
My point is most people wont run when they see a gun.


Does your experience prove anything? No

That most people dont move when a guns put in thier face.


Should abnormal but harmless behaviour equal a death sentence? No

I never said that, your saying that not me.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by optimus fett

lets remember this guy jumped down escalators and vaulted a barrier...(apparentley)....even if he was deaf, he was acting super weird at a time when police are on the look out for anything even slightly suspicious.



I've seen lots of punks do that in big city subways (New York, Paris, San Francisco, Wash DC) ... they are criminals in the sense that they are getting a free ride on the train, but they are certainly not terrorists.

The problem is a certain sense of jumpiness that we in the US are slowly getting used to (after 9/11), and perhaps only now the English can start to understand (after london).

The other problem is that since the British do not arm their police with guns, they are not as trained as the officers in the US are. I am not saying we have better cops, but I am observing that they have alot less experience with the very fast decision making that goes along with the choice to pull the trigger, and, where to aim (chest, foot, leg, etc.).

How many times has something like this happened in bad neighborhoods in the US? Thousands, probably. It is less of a shock to us than it is to the English.

Additionally, it's my understanding that the officers that shot the apparently innocent (of terrorism) Brazilian man were british special ops not regular beat cops. Special ops in this country would be like our SWAT teams I would think.

From a management perspective, it's not a good idea to put your SWAT teams on 24/7 surveillance. Usually they are only called in when shots have already been fired and when it is known that the suspect is already armed and highly dangerous. They are called in only after the regular beat cops have either taken shots or were otherwise in fear for their lives and for the lives of the citizens.

In this case they were on patrol. Not a good management plan. Tensions were extremely high. Obviously the guy was a fool to run like that, but let's think about it, do you think that someone with a bomb could be running like that? Not without accidentally setting it off ...



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by grad_student
I've seen lots of punks do that in big city subways (New York, Paris, San Francisco, Wash DC) ... they are criminals in the sense that they are getting a free ride on the train, but they are certainly not terrorists.

The problem is a certain sense of jumpiness that we in the US are slowly getting used to (after 9/11), and perhaps only now the English can start to understand (after london).

The other problem is that since the British do not arm their police with guns, they are not as trained as the officers in the US are. I am not saying we have better cops, but I am observing that they have alot less experience with the very fast decision making that goes along with the choice to pull the trigger, and, where to aim (chest, foot, leg, etc.).

What?
Each of these police officers with weapons ( not guns, guns are on ships) goes through intensive training, they are trained where to aim and make decisions fast.


How many times has something like this happened in bad neighborhoods in the US? Thousands, probably. It is less of a shock to us than it is to the English.

Additionally, it's my understanding that the officers that shot the apparently innocent (of terrorism) Brazilian man were british special ops not regular beat cops. Special ops in this country would be like our SWAT teams I would think.

No its more like your "vice" Since they where plain clothed officers.


From a management perspective, it's not a good idea to put your SWAT teams on 24/7 surveillance. Usually they are only called in when shots have already been fired and when it is known that the suspect is already armed and highly dangerous. They are called in only after the regular beat cops have either taken shots or were otherwise in fear for their lives and for the lives of the citizens.

Thats why we have our SWAT teams (SO19) on standby and not recon.


In this case they were on patrol. Not a good management plan. Tensions were extremely high. Obviously the guy was a fool to run like that, but let's think about it, do you think that someone with a bomb could be running like that? Not without accidentally setting it off ...

They where not SWAT, they where not SO19, they special branch ( I assume), SO19 is SWAT.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Does your experience prove anything? No


Originally posted by devilwasp
That most people dont move when a guns put in thier face.


It doesn't prove anything of the sort (statistically), and in any case, the Brazilian didn't have a gun in his face.


Originally posted by Roy Robinson StewartShould abnormal but harmless behaviour equal a death sentence? No



Originally posted by devilwaspI never said that, your saying that not me.


You are implying exactly that by supporting the shooting of the Brazillian guy



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
It doesn't prove anything of the sort (statistically),

I know, but it does show that 2 out of 2 times the subjects didnt run.


and in any case, the Brazilian didn't have a gun in his face.

Ah but how do we know this?



You are implying exactly that by supporting the shooting of the Brazillian guy

I am implying that people who are suspected terrorists, who run, wrestle with police and reach for something in thier jackets are shootable.
I am not supporting any execution since there was none, I am not supporting the shooting I am simply saying the police done thier job but it went wrong.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
It doesn't prove anything of the sort (statistically),

I know, but it does show that 2 out of 2 times the subjects didnt run.


and in any case, the Brazilian didn't have a gun in his face.

Ah but how do we know this?



You are implying exactly that by supporting the shooting of the Brazillian guy

I am implying that people who are suspected terrorists, who run, wrestle with police and reach for something in thier jackets are shootable.
I am not supporting any execution since there was none, I am not supporting the shooting I am simply saying the police done thier job but it went wrong.


You are a hard man to follow.

BTW I was seated and had my back to the wall in a small kitchen when I had a shotgun in my face. . . . nowhere to run. . . . . so your 'statistic' of 2 out of 2 not running is BS.

Bring back the Monarchy, stuff the Roundheads!



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   
You all might not agree with me on this, but why should it be up to the government as to a cop shooting to kill? I believe that it should be up to the police department that an officer works for. It should alsto be upto that officer whether to shoot a person or not depending if their life depended on it. Another thing is that terrorists are among us, so wouldn't it be hard to spot a suicide bomber or a regular terrorist bomber?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

I am implying that people who are suspected terrorists, who run, wrestle with police and reach for something in thier jackets are shootable.
I am not supporting any execution since there was none, I am not supporting the shooting I am simply saying the police done thier job but it went wrong.


DV at the risk of supporting you again!, you're right.

Roy Robinson you'd argue it wasn't raining in a downpour! - I still don't understand what you'd propose as a credible alternative course of action.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092

I still don't understand what you'd propose as a credible alternative course of action.


Imprisonment policy applied to Blair, because he is a proven terrorist.



[edit on 10-8-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   
this is my theory of what happened, because of the police shouting 'stop', i really doubt they shouted 'stop' to a man that was walking. this makes me think that while they were watching him, that perhaps that's when he jumped over the ticket barrier, followed by some people shouting stop, they guy probably thought he better run to get on the train.

this is because if the police wanted to approach this man quietly they would have done so as he was not a threat at this point, and they would have merely said excuse me can you come with us etc. however, the only response we ever have from police is them shouting stop, which makes me think the brazilian guy was running first, rather than the other way around, hence he probably wasn't scared and started to run because they were shouting, but ran because he had jumped a ticket barried perhaps.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Dammit I often run when in town and I believe that I have the right to do so without being gunned down by bureaucrats!

And I have a long beard, wear bulky clothing in summer, carry a black briefcase, wear bare feet in winter, have patched trousers, long unkempt hair and often have white sunblock smeared all over my face and in my beard.

I am a Peacenik not a terrorist (Although doublespeak might say that peaceful Peaceniks are supporters of terrorism by not justifying anti muslim violence)

The problem is that Democracy really sucks. . . . we end up with rows of power hungry ambitious little con men

Give me a real Monarchy any day !





posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
You are a hard man to follow.

I try , i try.


BTW I was seated and had my back to the wall in a small kitchen when I had a shotgun in my face. . . . nowhere to run. . . . . so your 'statistic' of 2 out of 2 not running is BS.

Your telling me you coulndt have moved out of the way of a shotgun while sitting down?
Okk then..



Bring back the Monarchy, stuff the Roundheads!

Did we have a revolution?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   


BTW I was seated and had my back to the wall in a small kitchen when I had a shotgun in my face. . . . nowhere to run. . . . . so your 'statistic' of 2 out of 2 not running is BS.


like i said, i don't think he saw any guns, the police or their hats. i think the brazilian man jumped the ticket barrier, heard someone shout stop...and he ran. that makes more sense than the police pulling out guns on a person that's walking and shouting stop at him.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   


ITV News has obtained secret documents and photographs that detail why police shot Jean Charles De Menezes dead on the tube.

The Brazilian electrician was killed on 22 July, the day after the series of failed bombings on the tube and bus network.

The crucial mistake that ultimately led to his death was made at 9.30am when Jean Charles left his flat in Scotia Road, South London.


Surveillance officers wrongly believed he could have been Hussain Osman, one of the prime suspects, or another terrorist suspect.

By 10am that morning, elite firearms officers were provided with what they describe as "positive identification" and shot De Menezes eight times in the head and upper body.

The documents and photographs confirm that Jean Charles was not carrying any bags, and was wearing a denim jacket, not a bulky winter coat, as had previously been claimed.

He was behaving normally, and did not vault the barriers, even stopping to pick up a free newspaper.

He started running when we saw a tube at the platform. Police HAD agreed they would shoot a suspect if he ran.


devilwasp...i think i should say something along the lines of 'i told you so'. i also told you that when documents were to be released and investigated that new evidence would show ultimately that it was the police's fault.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Mabye if you read it ,they believe he was a terrorist, how did they know he was simply going to get on a train?
They thought he was a big time terrorist, THAT fact was not known , I TOLD YOU there was a good reason for watching him THATS WHY.
When they say he was acting normally, that makes no diffrence apart from the jumping the barrier bit which I agree is rather "dodgy" , a terrorist can appear normal one minute and disturbed the next.
The brain works in seconds, not minutes.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   
well they weren't watching 'him'. they were watching people coming out of that section of flats. the officer did not get a good enough look at him to say if that was their suspect and said 'i'd be a good idea for someone else to have a look'. another plain clothed officer followed him to the bus and at that point a decision was made to carry on following, yet to not let him in to the station.
however, he did enter the station (walking) and picking up his paper like any normal person. he used his card to get passed the ticket barrier, and may have jogged on to his train when he saw it at the platform. while all this happened a decision was made to use 'shoot to kill', not even taking in to account the situation, the decision was made to kill this person. somewhere along the line someone identified him as one of the suspect bombers from only the day before.

eye witness statements that say he tripped, was pushed, runing on the train a fell, wearing a bulky jacket, acting suspicious, vaulting the ticket barrier, police shouting stop, are all lies. devilwasp does this not make you suspicious of the amount of lies you were told about the events?

he was wearing an open denim jacket, suspicious?...hardly. he bought a newspaper, suspicious?...very doubtful. he used his electronic ticket card to get passed the ticket barrier, a threat?...certainly not. all these threats you talk about, and police had a right to be suspicious of this man, when they had no right to be suspicious nor think he was a threat.

this is a picture of the actual suspect:



this is the innocent victim:



the only similarity is that these are both men. other than that they are completly different, especially (like i should have to point this out) one is white and one is not.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
well they weren't watching 'him'. they were watching people coming out of that section of flats. the officer did not get a good enough look at him to say if that was their suspect and said 'i'd be a good idea for someone else to have a look'. another plain clothed officer followed him to the bus and at that point a decision was made to carry on following, yet to not let him in to the station.
however, he did enter the station (walking) and picking up his paper like any normal person. he used his card to get passed the ticket barrier, and may have jogged on to his train when he saw it at the platform. while all this happened a decision was made to use 'shoot to kill', not even taking in to account the situation, the decision was made to kill this person. somewhere along the line someone identified him as one of the suspect bombers from only the day before.

So you blame the police for doing their jobs?
And for an officer makeing a mistake.



eye witness statements that say he tripped, was pushed, runing on the train a fell, wearing a bulky jacket, acting suspicious, vaulting the ticket barrier, police shouting stop, are all lies. devilwasp does this not make you suspicious of the amount of lies you were told about the events?

They are not lies, simply diffrent views, everyone sees things diffrently and some people just come to conclusions, surely you know this?


he was wearing an open denim jacket, suspicious?...hardly. he bought a newspaper, suspicious?...very doubtful. he used his electronic ticket card to get passed the ticket barrier, a threat?...certainly not. all these threats you talk about, and police had a right to be suspicious of this man, when they had no right to be suspicious nor think he was a threat.

The threats I talked about where from the information I was given, The information NOW will always be diffrent than the info before.
They where suspicious of the man due to the information THEY where given. When the man ran/jogged they most likely got worried and tried to pull the plug. BTW, how is any clothing not suspicious?
Its the opinion of the judger on whether or not its suspicious or not.



the only similarity is that these are both men. other than that they are completly different, especially (like i should have to point this out) one is white and one is not.

With respect its easy to pick out 2 men standing still , on the move , in and out of light and dark, is not as easy.
They made a mistake, how difficult is that to understand?
For that what do you want?
A ban of police carrying guns? Guess what we tried that, didnt work.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
So you blame the police for doing their jobs?
And for an officer makeing a mistake.


the firearm units were told 'shoot to kill', kill this man. they didn't have photos to see if the man fitted the description, so obviously they cannot be blamed. hence, it is not the officers that shot the man that made the mistake. the people who made the mistake, were the surveillence team who identified this man as the suspect bomber, without 100% clarification.



They are not lies, simply diffrent views, everyone sees things diffrently and some people just come to conclusions, surely you know this?


yeah different views, one is right and one is wrong. the eye witness statements were corroborated by the police in their official statement. even after you know the man didn't run from police shouting stop, even after you know he didn't jump a ticket barrier, you still say there are no lies?



The threats I talked about where from the information I was given, The information NOW will always be diffrent than the info before.
They where suspicious of the man due to the information THEY where given. When the man ran/jogged they most likely got worried and tried to pull the plug. BTW, how is any clothing not suspicious?
Its the opinion of the judger on whether or not its suspicious or not.


the firearm unit didn't make any judgement. they acted solely on information given to them by the surveillence and intelligence teams. however, the brazilian man acted, they were going to shoot him. it just so happens he was on the train sitting down...wow, what a threat




With respect its easy to pick out 2 men standing still , on the move , in and out of light and dark, is not as easy.
They made a mistake, how difficult is that to understand?
For that what do you want?
A ban of police carrying guns? Guess what we tried that, didnt work.


how difficult is it for you to understand that the whole thing was a sham? this man was no threat. this man was not acting suspicious and should not have been killed. ultimately it comes down to the intelligence team who can't tell the difference between a black man and white man. i understand it was a mistake, but it's not really a small mistake, it's a pretty f-ing huge mistake.

i never said for the police not to carry guns. why do you assume i want to ban police carrying guns? what i want is for you to swallow your pride, and just admit you were told many lies on that day and now you need to accept the 'actual' story.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the firearm units were told 'shoot to kill', kill this man. they didn't have photos to see if the man fitted the description, so obviously they cannot be blamed. hence, it is not the officers that shot the man that made the mistake. the people who made the mistake, were the surveillence team who identified this man as the suspect bomber, without 100% clarification.

Yeah but your saying the police, that means everyone.
If you said the survialence team.



yeah different views, one is right and one is wrong.

There is no right and wrong, only opinion and interptpretation.



the eye witness statements were corroborated by the police in their official statement. even after you know the man didn't run from police shouting stop, even after you know he didn't jump a ticket barrier, you still say there are no lies?

The police never said they shouted stop, I assumed this because its SOP.
There are never any lies, only half truths and interpretations.



the firearm unit didn't make any judgement. they acted solely on information given to them by the surveillence and intelligence teams. however, the brazilian man acted, they were going to shoot him. it just so happens he was on the train sitting down...wow, what a threat

[/qoute]The firearm unit was ordered to stop him, if that involves killing him then sorry thats thier job.
The terrorits in 7/7 and 7/21 where sitting down, doesnt matter if he was on the bog or standing shouting for death of americans.



how difficult is it for you to understand that the whole thing was a sham? this man was no threat. this man was not acting suspicious and should not have been killed. ultimately it comes down to the intelligence team who can't tell the difference between a black man and white man. i understand it was a mistake, but it's not really a small mistake, it's a pretty f-ing huge mistake.

The indentifing was a sham, the execution of the operation was not.


i never said for the police not to carry guns. why do you assume i want to ban police carrying guns? what i want is for you to swallow your pride, and just admit you were told many lies on that day and now you need to accept the 'actual' story.

Because you seem to think they cant handle them?
My pride is not at issue here, the honour of the police and my country is.
I was told things that did and did not occur, is this any diffrent from ANY event?





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join