Shoot To Kill Policy Correct?

page: 14
0
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Residual Imagery


Originally posted by shaunybaby
so stfu about guns being on boats.

It's strange, but for some reason whenever I see the letters “STFU”, I see this image in my mind:



I blame the Internet.




posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
I dont believe anything is undefendable.
Yeah but I still am going to defend them.


do you think saddam hussain's case is defendable? obviously as 'anything' is defendable in your eyes.



The officers didnt just get the " shoot him" order, they where most likely ordered to stop him but the officer at the trigger made a RATIONAL thought that the man was a danger.


well as atleast one officer physically handled de menezes he would have known that there was no device, hence no threat. so even though his officer perhaps was ordered not to shoot, you still think it's o.k that he did shoot because 'he' thought there was a danger...that still doesn't make it right. you keep on and on about dangers and threats, when the was none at all despite all this suicide bombing fiasco.



Acted wrong in whose opinion yours or mine?
Right and wrong are interpretations.


acted wrong in my opinion. so? what's the difference if it's my opinion or not. if you can't see that the police acted wrongly then you're dumber than i first thought. obviously you're going to carry on sticking by the police, whather story and facts come out. so it's like talking to a brick wall basically.



Nope, acording to your logic though every one who walks around in crowded areas for a certain ammount of time is "safe".


well, is walking around in crowded areas for a certain amount of time thought of as dangerous or something? it's not safe or dangerous. if anything within a crowded area you are more safe. i'd much prefer that than a dark alley or road on my own.



Not really, if they didnt matter the police wouldnt be there defending them.


how is shooting innocent people defending us? whether or not they 'thought' he was a threat, they shot an innocent man. his only mistake was coming out of his flat that day.



Can you tell the diffrence between an illegal forigner and a suicide bomber before he acts?


can you tell the difference between a rational arguement and an irrational one? yours is the 2nd of the two.



ITV, or who ever have done the same.
"Papers" was just one source.
Eye witnesses where there, "leaked documents" can be faked.


most of the eye witness statements say they heard four popping sounds, or 5 shots, or 7 shots etc... however, after his post-mortem it was found that he had 7 shots to the head, 1 to the shoulder, and now is thought that 3 missed, hence 11 shots, this outright shows most of the eyewitnesses lied about the number of shots, and hence their other statements about the events cannot be trusted. if these leaked documents were faked then someone from the enquiry board would have publically spoken out, yet they have just decided 'not to comment'.



The police had watched his flat and followed him, the "subdued" bit is simply your opinion, the officer said he had the mans arms down his sides, anything could have been in his hands or pockets, WELL WITHIN REACH.


so anyone with their hands in their pockets is allowed to be shot? yeah that makes sense. like i've said before the police cannot shoot someone just because they 'think' he might have a concealed weapon.



He says the information he recieves.


then he should not have commented so early until he had more information. he came out early and said the shooting was directly linked and the person shot was directly linked to the bombings, then had to retract that statement. then he came out and said de menezes had challenged police and not obeyed orders, and again has had to retract that as he spoke too soon.



It has to come from other people otherwise your saying Mr Ian Blair was at the shooting and pulled the trigger and followed the target and done the entire operation by himself....are you saying that?


stfu. stop acting like a smart arse for once... can you try that?



Yeah thats the point, and yet you want more done to them?


like i said before, what then constitutes to an officer being tried, as a normal citizen, for murder? obviously one innocent victim dead is o.k. so is the limit 2 innocent people shot, or 3, or 4?



I am not being a smart arse, you want to get seros, lets be serios then.
Anything over 30mm is a "gun" , this whole "hand gun" thing is a civilain makeing.
Military and police call them rifles, which is the proper term for every pistol, rifle, fully automatic rifle and air rifle.


i guess the dictionary decided to leave out that then. still makes you a smart arse, trying to be clever though. if i say gun, or handgun, or firearm you know what i mean, and so does everyone else, pointing out guns are on ships is just another part of your lame argument.



I didnt know that defending inocent men and women was pointless?


defending de menezes isn't pointless. arguing with you is. atleast you accept he was innocent then... about f-ing time.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Residual Imagery


Originally posted by shaunybaby
so stfu about guns being on boats.

It's strange, but for some reason whenever I see the letters “STFU”, I see this image in my mind:


well... if i were aloud to write freely as i would like on this forum i would wrote it out in full, yet everytime i do i get a warning when i swear, and even if i swear using a couple of the letters and then adding in some ****. so i swear and i get warned by moderators. or i swear nicely in abreviations and someone thinks im some sort of internet newbie.

Post edited because the poster cannot express his thoughts without swearing or pseudo-swearing.

[edit on 23-8-2005 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
do you think saddam hussain's case is defendable? obviously as 'anything' is defendable in your eyes.

I never said anything about victory, I can only say you can defend it.



well as atleast one officer physically handled de menezes he would have known that there was no device, hence no threat.

How?
X-ray vision?


so even though his officer perhaps was ordered not to shoot, you still think it's o.k that he did shoot because 'he' thought there was a danger...that still doesn't make it right.

Yeah it does.


you keep on and on about dangers and threats, when the was none at all despite all this suicide bombing fiasco.

Says who? YOU?
ME?
The officer behind the trigger?



acted wrong in my opinion. so? what's the difference if it's my opinion or not. if you can't see that the police acted wrongly then you're dumber than i first thought. obviously you're going to carry on sticking by the police, whather story and facts come out. so it's like talking to a brick wall basically.

Wrong and right are interpretations.
Also I would ask you not to insult me personally.
I will stick by the police because I know they are human beings.
Pot calling kettle black?



well, is walking around in crowded areas for a certain amount of time thought of as dangerous or something? it's not safe or dangerous. if anything within a crowded area you are more safe. i'd much prefer that than a dark alley or road on my own.

What?
We were talking about how a person can be dangerous no matter the situation, but now you tangent on towards how I feel walking through a crowded area....




how is shooting innocent people defending us? whether or not they 'thought' he was a threat, they shot an innocent man. his only mistake was coming out of his flat that day.

His mistake was staying here longer than he should of.
Shooting a suspected terroist is diffrent from shooting an inocent man in opinion only.



can you tell the difference between a rational arguement and an irrational one? yours is the 2nd of the two.

Is asking if someone can tell the diffrence between suicide bombers and civilains before they act irrational?



most of the eye witness statements say they heard four popping sounds, or 5 shots, or 7 shots etc... however, after his post-mortem it was found that he had 7 shots to the head, 1 to the shoulder, and now is thought that 3 missed, hence 11 shots, this outright shows most of the eyewitnesses lied about the number of shots, and hence their other statements about the events cannot be trusted. if these leaked documents were faked then someone from the enquiry board would have publically spoken out, yet they have just decided 'not to comment'.

Lied? Or made mistakes?
I take it you dont know anything about finding out what happened...everyone see's something diffrent.

They cant rule out anything, even those "leaked docutments".



so anyone with their hands in their pockets is allowed to be shot? yeah that makes sense. like i've said before the police cannot shoot someone just because they 'think' he might have a concealed weapon.

Yes they can.


where a forcible and violent felony is attempted upon the person of another, the party assaulted, or his servant, or any other person present, is entitled to repel force by force, and, if necessary, to kill the aggressor

The officer probably thought the man was going for a bomb.




He says the information he recieves.


then he should not have commented so early until he had more information. he came out early and said the shooting was directly linked and the person shot was directly linked to the bombings, then had to retract that statement. then he came out and said de menezes had challenged police and not obeyed orders, and again has had to retract that as he spoke too soon.



stfu. stop acting like a smart arse for once... can you try that?

Nice to see your acting your age...



like i said before, what then constitutes to an officer being tried, as a normal citizen, for murder? obviously one innocent victim dead is o.k. so is the limit 2 innocent people shot, or 3, or 4?

Its not black and white, dont try and make it out to be like that.
Theres more to this than "he shot an inocent man".



i guess the dictionary decided to leave out that then. still makes you a smart arse, trying to be clever though. if i say gun, or handgun, or firearm you know what i mean, and so does everyone else, pointing out guns are on ships is just another part of your lame argument.

Yeah "lame" arguemnt.
The dictionary is quite rightly a POS, come on its partly racist for crying out loud.



Rifle:
A firearm with a rifled bore

Gun:
A cannon with a long barrel and a relatively low angle of fire




defending de menezes isn't pointless. arguing with you is. atleast you accept he was innocent then... about f-ing time.

Inocent of being a suicide bomber, Guily of being illegally in this country.
If you think its pointless, you can just ignore me...



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
I never said anything about victory, I can only say you can defend it.


victory? what in the world are you on about. you said anything is defendable, when it's clearly not.



How?
X-ray vision?


there you go again with the smart comments, and you have the nerve to say i'm acting my 'young' age. i already said the officer 'physically' handled de menezes. it is also believed that the bombs from 7/7 and 21/7 were in rucksacks, not strapped to the body.



Yeah it does.


the classic yeah it does, no it doesn't arguement




Wrong and right are interpretations.
I will stick by the police because I know they are human beings.


hitler, in his mind, was right in everything he did. however, in my opinion he was wrong. hitler's interpretation of right and wrong is obviously different to mine. however, when you say what is 'morally' right and 'morally' wrong, hitler's arguement no longer stands up.

the same as in your opinion the shooting of de menezes was right, and you'll defend the police, whereas in my opinion it was wrong...they are both interpretations. however, morally it was wrong. fact. this is because you have to forget all outside arguements and say 'an innocent man was killed', which is morally wrong even if the police do it.



His mistake was staying here longer than he should of.


plently of people outstay their welcome in the uk, doesn't mean they should be shot. if you want that kind of tolerance towards them then don't let them in the country in the first place.



Shooting a suspected terroist is diffrent from shooting an inocent man in opinion only.


that ideology screams out 'idiot'.



Lied? Or made mistakes?
I take it you dont know anything about finding out what happened...everyone see's something diffrent.


well i can understand you may make mistakes about how many shots were fired as they were probably fired very close together. however, i don't think saying de menezes was wearing a ''bulky, padded, winter coat'' is a mistake, that's an outright lie.



The officer probably thought the man was going for a bomb.


the firearms unit didn't stop to think. they rushed on the train after the surviellence officers had stopped de menezes, and opened fire. the firearms unit did not wait to see if the man went for a bomb, did not wait to access the situation, did not wait to see if the man was a threat.

and also according to you ''probably thought'' is enough for a police officer to fire his weapon. and you wonder why i resort to personal attacks, when you make comments like that?



Nice to see your acting your age...


acting my age? exactly how should i act according to you then? sit back and let you make irrational arguments, watch you make idiotic comment after idiotic comment about this scenario? sorry to burst your bubble but it's true. yes it's my opinion, but morally your arguement stinks.



Its not black and white, dont try and make it out to be like that.
Theres more to this than "he shot an inocent man".


it is really as simple as that 'black and white'. there were only two options that day, shoot him, or don't shoot him. that's how simple it was. that's how quickly a choice was made to take an innocent man's life that day.



Rifle:
A firearm with a rifled bore
Gun:
A cannon with a long barrel and a relatively low angle of fire


who cares? rifle = firearm = handgun = gun = weapon = death.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Ok lets tone things down a little, lets focus on the topic.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
victory? what in the world are you on about. you said anything is defendable, when it's clearly not.

You can defend something, but that doesnt mean you will be sucessful.



there you go again with the smart comments, and you have the nerve to say i'm acting my 'young' age. i already said the officer 'physically' handled de menezes. it is also believed that the bombs from 7/7 and 21/7 were in rucksacks, not strapped to the body.

I'm a hypocrit, so sue me.
I have quite a bit nerve, its the sciatic nerve.
He was physically handleded the man, what does that mean??
He touched him?
Grabbed him?
Felt him up?
Punched him?
Bombs come in other sizes.



the classic yeah it does, no it doesn't arguement


Yup arnt classics great.
No need to pay road tax on them ethier.
In response to the comment, they are quite legally able to do so.



hitler, in his mind, was right in everything he did. however, in my opinion he was wrong. hitler's interpretation of right and wrong is obviously different to mine. however, when you say what is 'morally' right and 'morally' wrong, hitler's arguement no longer stands up.

Thats the very point, its about interpretation and opinion.
Also what is "moraly" right depends on your morals.


the same as in your opinion the shooting of de menezes was right, and you'll defend the police, whereas in my opinion it was wrong...they are both interpretations. however, morally it was wrong. fact. this is because you have to forget all outside arguements and say 'an innocent man was killed', which is morally wrong even if the police do it.

Acording to who's morals?
Yours?
Mine?
Dont try and produce it as a fact because you and I both know its not black and white.



plently of people outstay their welcome in the uk, doesn't mean they should be shot. if you want that kind of tolerance towards them then don't let them in the country in the first place.

Yeah and plenty of people here are illegal and if they went back to where they were from we wouldnt have the problems we have wth them today.

He had a visa, how could we know he wouldnt leave when it was up?



that ideology screams out 'idiot'.

Yeah in your opinion, how about mine?



well i can understand you may make mistakes about how many shots were fired as they were probably fired very close together. however, i don't think saying de menezes was wearing a ''bulky, padded, winter coat'' is a mistake, that's an outright lie.

No its a mistake, in the heat of a moment, colours blend.
One guys jacket could have been on another.
Its called shock.



the firearms unit didn't stop to think. they rushed on the train after the surviellence officers had stopped de menezes, and opened fire. the firearms unit did not wait to see if the man went for a bomb, did not wait to access the situation, did not wait to see if the man was a threat.

In the firearms cant "wait and see" they need to act.
Its there job and there purpose, otherwise they would be called the wait and see unit NOT SO-19.
What they see as a threat is the enemy to them.


and also according to you ''probably thought'' is enough for a police officer to fire his weapon. and you wonder why i resort to personal attacks, when you make comments like that?

Yeah it is enough, its called self defence.
If someone walks up to you with a knife do you stand and wait until he stabs you before acting or do run before it or do you fight before that?
Sine when is "probably thought" makeing you resort to personel attacks?
Its what would have happened because THATS how they are trained.



acting my age? exactly how should i act according to you then? sit back and let you make irrational arguments, watch you make idiotic comment after idiotic comment about this scenario? sorry to burst your bubble but it's true. yes it's my opinion, but morally your arguement stinks.

Acording to T+C, also you shouldnt care how you should act acording to me, you are your own person.
I havent said anything idiotic nor irational, THATS your opinion.
Morally my argument stands.


it is really as simple as that 'black and white'. there were only two options that day, shoot him, or don't shoot him. that's how simple it was. that's how quickly a choice was made to take an innocent man's life that day.

The world is not black and white, if you believe that then your doomed.
They had more than 2 options, they chose the kill option, it happened tough S.



who cares? rifle = firearm = handgun = gun = weapon = death.

Rifle: Not gun.
Firarm: Weapon
Weapon: Possible death.


Originally posted by asala
Ok lets tone things down a little, lets focus on the topic.

Ok asala.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by asala
Ok lets tone things down a little, lets focus on the topic.


i kind of liked where things were going: a full blown heated arguement that had almost nothing to do with the actual topic of this thread.

i think the shoot to kill policy is correct. but only in certain circumstances. for example, if a man is waving a firearm, refuses to cooperate, the is a danger to police and other civilians, then obviously 'action' needs to be taken. if something along those lines happened i could understand that the necessary action was taken.

in the case of de menezes, he wasn't waving a firearm around, he didn't threaten police verbally or physically, he didn't 'act' suspiciously, if anything he was just like you and i. one officer handled de menezes, grabbed his torso and held his arms to his sides, and then pushed him back in to his chair. do you not think that perhaps after all this a suicide bomber would have actually decided to set his bomb off. if de menezes was a suicide bomber, he would have been one hell of a slow one.

even in the circumstances we're in, it doesn't mean we should bring in shoot to kill policies, and accept that (in the words of ian blair) 'more innocent people may be killed'.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I wont post a reply to him, to stop this arguement.
If he wants to reply , there is U2U.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Swear By It


Originally posted by shaunybaby
well... if i were aloud to write freely as i would like on this forum i would wrote it out in full, yet everytime i do i get a warning when i swear, and even if i swear using a couple of the letters and then adding in some ****. so i swear and i get warned by moderators. or i swear nicely in abreviations and someone thinks im some sort of internet newbie.

First off, I don't think you're a “newbie” nor am I particularly fond of people who call others that.

I suppose the irony of my little post was not appreciated by all. Such are the hazards of dry humor.


To be more blunt, it's rude to tell people to “STFU”, and it's rude to swear at people.

It's not just rude to the people you address that way, but to everyone who reads it. In the case of ATS, that turns out to be a lot of people.

The question to ask yourself is why you are so angry that people disagree with you.

Find the answer to that question, and your compulsion to insult others may well disappear on its own.*

That's my advice, which you are free to consider or ignore as you see fit.

Whatever your path, I wish you well.


Topical Regression

Having strayed too far already, I'll respect Asala's very reasonable request and leave my previous statements (that STK is okay, if managed properly) stand as is.

I just wanted to clear up any misconceptions about the idea that I think anyone here is a “newbie”, that I support or subscribe to such name-calling, or other such silliness.

What I see are fellow members who disagree, and I see nothing wrong with that.

My appeal is that in disagreeing, we do so with respect for one another, and I'm optimistic that we can.





*HINT: Anger is rooted in fear. The fear is that you're wrong. Don't fear, because it's okay to be wrong, and it's okay for others to be wrong, because ultimately, we're all wrong. My tuppence on the matter. -M





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join