It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shoot To Kill Policy Correct?

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyboy211

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

It was a planned assassination.

Your 'coppers' are the new Gestapo

You are a Neo Nazi

I will not be joining you in hell.



Take this vile crap and post it somewhere else


Clearly the London police are behaving like the Gestapo.

Many people supported the Nazis, and they all thought that they had good reasons for doing so. You are doing the same thing.

Do you want me to explain in detail ?







posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyboy211

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

It was a planned assassination.

Your 'coppers' are the new Gestapo

You are a Neo Nazi

I will not be joining you in hell.



Take this vile crap and post it somewhere else


Oh, damn!

Another thread is going to Slug Fest.

I can feel it in my bones.

OK. I'm going for a drink now, before Zee Germans get here.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   


Clearly the London police are behaving like the Gestapo.
Many people supported the Nazis, and they all thought that they had good reasons for doing so. You are doing the same thing.

Do you want me to explain in detail ?


I certainly would love you to explain in detail. You might just get the chance to answer before this is moved or the whole thread closed.

The topic is, unless you forgot 'Shoot To Kill Policy Correct?'
Lets get back on topic and continue with the discussion at hand, and not the stupid remarks going back and forth.

There have been some good responses so far, lets keep it that way folks please.



[edit on 28-7-2005 by Bikereddie]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
My remarks were not stupid. The similarities between the two forces (UK police and Gestapo) are now obvious.

Those who are in support of the 'war against terrorism' are very sensitive to labels because the whole movement relies on dividing and labelling people in order to justify attacking them.

A few of these well known labels:

'Islamic extremist'

'Insurgent'

'terrorist'

'terrorist suspect'

Now you bleat when I use a couple of labels which you don't like in order to describe the behaviour of the London police, and say that I must stop using these terms!

I will offer you a good deal: When the London police stop their policy of hunting and shooting innocent men, then I will stop calling them the 'New Gestapo'

But not until then.




posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
First of all. I am not bleating as you so kindly put it, but am asking people to get back to the topic on hand. You choose to side track and diversify with out any kind of back up, except your opinion of how you see things.

You chose to answer with the remarks you made, because you obviously think that i was aiming things at you. Wrong. I quoted you because you said you would explain things, yet you continue with the remarks that are inappropriate to this discussion.

Like i said, lets get back on topic ,and stop the remarks that are neither valid or worth while discussing on this thread.

If you don't like the way things are going, then don't answer to any questions/opinions posted.

This is a thread i started. I don't want it sending to the trash bin through certain peoples derogatory comments. Fair enough request eh?



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
No Verbal Warning Needed


One officer said an examination of the intelligence used, the decision making and identification of the supposed suspect "may reduce the culpability [of the officer who fired] quite significantly".

Another senior Met insider said: "When the truth comes out it is going to be horrific."


I don't agree with the shoot to kill policy. Simply because it might not be a bomber.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

My remarks were not stupid. The similarities between the two forces (UK police and Gestapo) are now obvious.



When did Krystllnacht occur against Muslim communities?

Where are the Muslims who are compelled to wear yellow stars to signify their identity?

Where is the penalty for them not wearing this?

Where are the Muslims being beaten and abducted by our police forces?

Where are the Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, who dare not criticise police procedure for fear that they or their families will face retribution.

Why are the families of the 7/7 bombers under POLICE protection rather than being thrown to the mob?

Exactly where is that mob?

Where are the cattle trucks to transport Muslims to the death camps?

Where is some common sense?

What is your agenda?



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubermunche

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

My remarks were not stupid. The similarities between the two forces (UK police and Gestapo) are now obvious.



When did Krystllnacht occur against Muslim communities?

Where are the Muslims who are compelled to wear yellow stars to signify their identity?

Where is the penalty for them not wearing this?

Where are the Muslims being beaten and abducted by our police forces?

Where are the Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, who dare not criticise police procedure for fear that they or their families will face retribution.

Why are the families of the 7/7 bombers under POLICE protection rather than being thrown to the mob?

Exactly where is that mob?

Where are the cattle trucks to transport Muslims to the death camps?

Where is some common sense?

What is your agenda?


Bang on!

If that was a G-Spot you hit she'd be moaning in ecstacy!



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
You choose to side track and diversify with out any kind of back up, except your opinion of how you see things.


I don't need any backup for voicing my opinion that the police should not be allowed to shoot to kill based on mere suspicion.


you continue with the remarks that are inappropriate to this discussion.


'Inappropriate' content huh? Exactly the word used by the UK police to describe their plans to control internet content worldwide


stop the remarks that are neither valid or worth while discussing on this thread.


You seem to be under the erroneous impression that by starting a thread you have the right to control the content of that thread.



This is a thread i started.


We already know that


I don't want it sending to the trash bin through certain peoples derogatory comments. Fair enough request eh?


Damage to your precious thread would indeed be tragic, but at least you haven't been gunned down for nothing.

Yet.

The shoot to kill on the basis of mere suspicion policy is evil and takes us all one step closer to global fascism.



[edit on 30-7-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Thanks for the response Roy Robinson Stewart. Points taken on board. No hard feelings.....

I have had many threads turn into slug fests or deleted because they got too heated or they side tracked to something totally different.

I do not assume i can control any posts within any thread i start. I only ask for the topic to be on track, nothing more. Maybe i sounded a bit off hand. For that i do appologise.......................




[edit on 31-7-2005 by Bikereddie]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
OK, back to the topic on hand.

There have been many threads started regarding the killing of the Brazilian 2 weeks ago. This thread has had many replies as to if this was right or wrong, most of which have had a mixed reaction to say the least.

Right or wrong, the shoot to kill policy is here to stay. The IRA are now backing down after years of tormenting our Government etc. Maybe, just maybe it will have the same effect on any other bombers,no matter if they be suicide or not. Either way, they are going to die. The shoot to kill policy, or detonation of the device they are wearing/planting spells the end for them.

Agree or not, it is here, and we have to live it. You cannot end terrorism, you can only fight it, sad , but true................................



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

You "know he might be" ??

That's not knowing something !!

It's Orwellian Double Talk ! !

Get off my planet before you screw it up completely, and take your evil murderous friends with you .

Do it now.


No intelligence is 100%, so if a man runs towards a crowded train and is suspected to be a suicide bomber would you not stop him?

Btw, I have never once personally insulted you, I would prefer if you showed me the same respect you would show anyone.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
No intelligence is 100%, so if a man runs towards a crowded train and is suspected to be a suicide bomber would you not stop him?


it was a mistake to let the guy get even in to the underground station. if they suspected him, then why in the world let him near the underground, let alone let him near people. from his house to the point at which he was executed he had about 15 to 20 minutes to set his bomb off. there is no such thing as british 'intelligence'.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
it was a mistake to let the guy get even in to the underground station.

They arested him when he entered, now tell me, does tht not classify as trying to stop him?



if they suspected him, then why in the world let him near the underground, let alone let him near people.

Did they know he was going to the underground that day?

Also they dont have 100% proof he was a terrorist, THATS why they where watching him.
To find out if he was one...



from his house to the point at which he was executed he had about 15 to 20 minutes to set his bomb off.


Yeah and in those 15 - 20 minutes they where watching him.
Containing him.
If he went into a station (like he did) then they would have stopped him (which they tried to) its called justifying you intelligence work.
As many have said before a dead terrorist gives no info, so these police wanted to keep him alive and doing his normal activities to gain info.
Which would you prefer?
Them to not act if he was a bomber therefore just observing or acting and gaining NO intelligence?


there is no such thing as british 'intelligence'.

I am quite insulted are you trying to offend me by calling me dumb and everyone in my country "dumb" or are you trying to say my country cant get info?



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
They arested him when he entered, now tell me, does tht not classify as trying to stop him?


shouting 'stop' at a suspect does not count as an arrest. so no it does not count as trying to stop him.



Did they know he was going to the underground that day?

Also they dont have 100% proof he was a terrorist, THATS why they where watching him.
To find out if he was one...


they were keeping watch of his block of flats, they should have known the bus he caught was going to the station. also perhaps the bus said 'stockwell station' on it. there was one succesful bomb on the bus, and one that failed, so why do they need to know he's going to the underground...when he can obviously set his bomb off on the bus. if they waited till he blew himself up...would that make him 100% proof of a terrorist? if the police suspect you could be a terrorist they will arrest you, they don't need 100% proof. this 100% proof obviously means a man running from 3 plain clothes people with guns who are shouting at him.



Yeah and in those 15 - 20 minutes they where watching him.
Containing him.
If he went into a station (like he did) then they would have stopped him (which they tried to) its called justifying you intelligence work.
As many have said before a dead terrorist gives no info, so these police wanted to keep him alive and doing his normal activities to gain info.
Which would you prefer?


if police wanted terrorists alive they would have been using tazers that day, like they are using now. 7 shots to the head is pushing it a bit to think that you're going to pick the guy up and he's going to answer some questions. ''trying to stop him''...shouting stop does not count as trying to stop a suspect. they should have walked slowly up to him and grabbed both his arms. what's the point in wearing plain clothes when you're going to shout ''stop'' at your suspect when he's 10, 20, or 30 feet away.



I am quite insulted are you trying to offend me by calling me dumb and everyone in my country "dumb" or are you trying to say my country cant get info?


i'm in the same country. i'm saying 'british intelligence', not to mean as a national IQ level, but our secret service intelligence that led us to this man, and the intelligence used to take him down when they had plenty of time to aprehend him quietly.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
shouting 'stop' at a suspect does not count as an arrest. so no it does not count as trying to stop him.
[/qoute]
No shouting at him to stop counts as trying to stop him......



they were keeping watch of his block of flats, they should have known the bus he caught was going to the station. also perhaps the bus said 'stockwell station' on it. there was one succesful bomb on the bus, and one that failed, so why do they need to know he's going to the underground...when he can obviously set his bomb off on the bus. if they waited till he blew himself up...would that make him 100% proof of a terrorist? if the police suspect you could be a terrorist they will arrest you, they don't need 100% proof. this 100% proof obviously means a man running from 3 plain clothes people with guns who are shouting at him.

So what now your moaning that the police where gaining intelligence to stop deaths but moan at them when they actually think there is a threat?
You are tieing the police's hands.
Just because you watch his house or flats for weeks doesnt mean that you will find out if he is a terrorist or not....


if police wanted terrorists alive they would have been using tazers that day, like they are using now. 7 shots to the head is pushing it a bit to think that you're going to pick the guy up and he's going to answer some questions. ''trying to stop him''...shouting stop does not count as trying to stop a suspect. they should have walked slowly up to him and grabbed both his arms. what's the point in wearing plain clothes when you're going to shout ''stop'' at your suspect when he's 10, 20, or 30 feet away.

A) A tazer can activate a bomb.
B) 7 shots is justifiable, hell an entire clip is justifiable.
C) Simply "grabbing" a suspect puts the officers and every other person around them at HIGH risk.
D) How can you stop a suspect by walking slowly up behind him if he running away?



i'm in the same country. i'm saying 'british intelligence', not to mean as a national IQ level, but our secret service intelligence that led us to this man, and the intelligence used to take him down when they had plenty of time to aprehend him quietly.

That makes it even worse.
Do you even know what our secret service intelliegence ARE doing?
Or infact who they ARE?



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
No shouting at him to stop counts as trying to stop him......


wrong. it alerts the suspect of the police, but the whole point of being in plain clothes is not to make suspects aware of your presence, and it is likely to scare anyone if three plain clothed people shout 'stop' at you.



So what now your moaning that the police where gaining intelligence to stop deaths but moan at them when they actually think there is a threat?
You are tieing the police's hands.


if there was any threat then the man should have been aprehended straight away. you don't wait for there to be a threat or a problem or a bomber to set his bomb off...you aprehend the suspect before he gets his/her chance to become a threat.



Just because you watch his house or flats for weeks doesnt mean that you will find out if he is a terrorist or not....


you're not going to find out if he's a terrorist by watching his flat, however why do you have to wait for 'him' to make a move. if they had simply aprehended the man as he came out of his flat they would have seen he had no bomb, would have questioned him, and he'd be fixing electric meters by now. arresting him there and then would atleast stop him getting too near any crowds.



A) A tazer can activate a bomb.
B) 7 shots is justifiable, hell an entire clip is justifiable.
C) Simply "grabbing" a suspect puts the officers and every other person around them at HIGH risk.
D) How can you stop a suspect by walking slowly up behind him if he running away?


if a tazer can set off a bomb then why are they using them now on raids of suspected bombers?
you said yourself that having an alive suspected bomber is better than a dead one and police did everything they could to keep him alive, yet you contradict yourself and say 7 shots to the head is justifiable? you need to face facts that the police missed every opportunity to arrest the man quietly, and in the end resorted to shooting him dead.
grabbing the bomber puts everyone at risk?? they shouted at him for christ's sake. if that was a suicide bomber as soon as they shouted he would have set it off. the idea to sneak up on him is so he is unaware of their presence and they should be able to grab both his arms and subdue him. yet, they chose to shout at high risk suicide bomber instead...and he only started to run when they shouted at him. they should never have shouted...if he's a suicide bomber and the police shout he's either going to set his bomb of there and then or run...

this isn't even about whether the shoot to kill policy is right, it's more about how the police treated the whole situation and whether or not this could have been avoided, and the answer is yes.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Three men die after being shot with stun guns

www.thedesertsun.com.../20050807/NEWS10/508070321/1024

And one was running away




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
we could go back to the old method and just use guns instead of tazers since they tend to be a torture like weapon. the officers cant beat them up with a baton and apprehend them because we have to get close to them and could endanger the officers.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
wrong. it alerts the suspect of the police, but the whole point of being in plain clothes is not to make suspects aware of your presence, and it is likely to scare anyone if three plain clothed people shout 'stop' at you.

No it gives them an order, if 3 plain clothed men with hats saying "police" tell you to stop, then you stop.



if there was any threat then the man should have been aprehended straight away. you don't wait for there to be a threat or a problem or a bomber to set his bomb off...you aprehend the suspect before he gets his/her chance to become a threat.

How do you know if he is a threat?



you're not going to find out if he's a terrorist by watching his flat, however why do you have to wait for 'him' to make a move. if they had simply aprehended the man as he came out of his flat they would have seen he had no bomb, would have questioned him, and he'd be fixing electric meters by now. arresting him there and then would atleast stop him getting too near any crowds.

So arresting and searching random people is ok?



if a tazer can set off a bomb then why are they using them now on raids of suspected bombers?

Because of the flak they get??


you said yourself that having an alive suspected bomber is better than a dead one and police did everything they could to keep him alive, yet you contradict yourself and say 7 shots to the head is justifiable? you need to face facts that the police missed every opportunity to arrest the man quietly, and in the end resorted to shooting him dead.

I said he is more valiable alive, BUT if that means risking the lives of 40 odd people then I will not do it.


grabbing the bomber puts everyone at risk?? they shouted at him for christ's sake. if that was a suicide bomber as soon as they shouted he would have set it off.

Oh really?
Why would he do that?
Would he not try and take as many down with him or would he just say "Oh well the jigs up better just do it now with not soo many casualties."


the idea to sneak up on him is so he is unaware of their presence and they should be able to grab both his arms and subdue him.

Guess what, that tactic puts everyone at a bigger risk.
If you noticed a 22/7 bomber was almost subdued and instead escaped.




yet, they chose to shout at high risk suicide bomber instead...and he only started to run when they shouted at him. they should never have shouted...if he's a suicide bomber and the police shout he's either going to set his bomb of there and then or run...

They didnt want to run the risk of him seeing them and detonateing the bomb, instead they tried to control the situation but he pushed back.
If someone with a weapon tells you to stop, you do it, why? Because he has control over you.


this isn't even about whether the shoot to kill policy is right, it's more about how the police treated the whole situation and whether or not this could have been avoided, and the answer is yes.

The answer is yes it could have been avoided IF they wherent gathering intelligence and IF they where randomly searching people and IF they didnt allow police to have weapons and IF the officer hadnt cared for the safety of the trains passengers and his fellow officers. But HEY , these officers do wrong no matter what they do.
They could have stopped the man outside his home and searched him but would be seen and condemmed as picking on forigners and racial crimes. They could have subdued him but then people would moan about how dangerous it would be.
No matter what the police do people hate them, why? Thats another question all together.



new topics




 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join