Shooting Brazillian man was a "mistake" (1 Viewer)

[supercharged]

"...or look a bit foreign."

lol may as well just say "look like a Pakistani or dressed like a Muslim"

 

[heybraham]

so...cyan...you're saying anyone displaying 'tell-tale signs' of fear in front of authorities should be shot 5 times in the head. that's great.

no amount of propaganda can justify why an innocent man should be dead.




i mean how many times have 'real' criminals run away from cops in London before this event...and how many escaped without 5 bullets in their head? innumerable.

 

[theone3]

You raise an excellent point. However, those people were not, in the eyes of the persuers, about to explode. There's a logical argument for both sides here, so it's just a tragedy that this has happened. Funny how media influence can cause such suspicion that it can lead to a man dying, and then gain popularity for talking about it.

 

[Generator]

What your pissweak mind has failed to grasp is that HE WAS FROM BRAZIL. HE COULD NOT SPEAK ENGLISH.

Ummm, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, his English skills were reasonable.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

People keep on repeating the five times in the head thing.... people, it was actually 7 times in the head and one time in the shoulder.

 

[Cyan_phoeniX]

so...cyan...you're saying anyone displaying 'tell-tale signs' of fear in front of authorities should be shot 5 times in the head. that's great.

no amount of propaganda can justify why an innocent man should be dead.




i mean how many times have 'real' criminals run away from cops in London before this event...and how many escaped without 5 bullets in their head? innumerable.

you make it sound too simplistic. I'm not going to repeat what i've said, as my view has been made clear already and it seems that it is only a few that cant grasp the idea that it is both tragic yet reasonable in the circumstances.

And i agree, too many people have escaped from the police, theone3 gave a good argument what the difference is in those cases. As for the other 'real criminals' who should not have escaped from police (say a person welding a gun who is a danger), then yes, they too should have been stopped and its a mistake to let them run away. So whats your argument then? 'Real criminals have escaped from police in the past therefore all people who look like real criminals should be able to escape too'? The former is a mistake. Are you saying the police should continue making the same mistakes? Thats fallacious thinking.

 

[heybraham]

you make it sound too simplistic. I'm not going to repeat what i've said, as my view has been made clear already and it seems that it is only a few that cant grasp the idea that it is both tragic yet reasonable in the circumstances.

And i agree, too many people have escaped from the police, theone3 gave a good argument what the difference is in those cases. As for the other 'real criminals' who should not have escaped from police (say a person welding a gun who is a danger), then yes, they too should have been stopped and its a mistake to let them run away. So whats your argument then? 'Real criminals have escaped from police in the past therefore all people who look like real criminals should be able to escape too'? The former is a mistake. Are you saying the police should continue making the same mistakes? Thats fallacious thinking.

no i'm saying, you shouldn't rely on police to provide security against terrorism. sure, the traditional police security model used to work against typical 'normal' criminals, but you see, the whole point of terrorism now is that the terrorists look like every other civilian. this dated model of catching the 'bad guys' is ultimately going to hurt us...more than them.

however, i cannot suggest a new 'model' of policing myself. it will simply infringe on privacy and freedoms.

 

[Cyan_phoeniX]

no i'm saying, you shouldn't rely on police to provide security against terrorism. sure, the traditional police security model used to work against typical 'normal' criminals, but you see, the whole point of terrorism now is that the terrorists look like every other civilian. this dated model of catching the 'bad guys' is ultimately going to hurt us...more than them.

however, i cannot suggest a new 'model' of policing myself. it will simply infringe on privacy and freedoms.

Then maybe our privacy and freedoms should be infringed then (infringed, not outright wiped out, but yes, then there would have to be a threshold, but then again, we already have one, we may just have to move it), if thats the only possible option? Terrorism makes use of these to their advantage. Outrageous to hear that, but its an option.

 

[tempco]

i'm all for compromising a bit of my rights and privacy for a bit more safety. just as long as the precautions actually work.

EDIT: this post in no way supports the shooting of the brazillian man. just in case it's being read that way.

 

[heybraham]

Then maybe our privacy and freedoms should be infringed then (infringed, not outright wiped out, but yes, then there would have to be a threshold, but then again, we already have one, we may just have to move it), if thats the only possible option? Terrorism makes use of these to their advantage. Outrageous to hear that, but its an option.

if authorities can infringe on our freedoms and privacy successfully, they can do it again. should they somehow conspire to create 'fake' terrorists, it would be a simple exercise for them to increase their control over us. every conflict in history has resulted in increased government powers. every revolution has brought a stronger form of government. WW1 -> Russian Revolution. Fascist Regime of Germany. WW2 -> spawned the United Nations. Cold War ->spawned US dominance. War against terrorism -> a new coalition of powers? anything goes

of course, governments have crumbled along the way, but the overall gain in power resembles the stock market, stocks soar and crash but at the end of the day, increase in value.

but the power to infringe privacies and freedoms? the power to compromise the life of an innocent man with 7 shots in the head? the power to get away with it? the excuses are starting to get out of hand.

sometimes, this terrorism thing really does remind me of the last book in the Bible, revelations, which prophecises that at the end of time, the earth will be engulfed by a totalitarian government controlled by satan.

 

[theone3]

Frankly, I think we've had our rights tampered with enough. Look at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib, and tell me that those are just infringements. Some people have been in Graib for years without knowing why.

Heybraham, your argument does not stand. Smaller scale wars have happened in the past with no shift in power, i.e. 1991 Gulf war, Vietnam, etc. WW1 didn't create the revolution, the Tsar's inability to reform, and attempt to stop the industrial 'revolution' did. And don't forget that the French, Chinese and American governments of today have spawned from sucessful revolutions.

 

[tattoodguy]

When its a certainty and its definetely a terrorist - ie he has a gun pointed at someone etc - by all means blow his head off.

But merely being a suspect, or wearing a heavy jacket etc - give people the benefit of the doubt and let them live.

The police had a choice - and they made the wrong choice - and there should be consequences.

I bet everyone who is in jail, had a reason for what they did, and i bet some have a really good reason. - the police show no mercy on them.

If police can commmit crimes and just apologise, so should alll criminals.

cyth phoenix ur attitude is shit.

 

[gr8cat]

When its a certainty and its definetely a terrorist - ie he has a gun pointed at someone etc - by all means blow his head off.

But merely being a suspect, or wearing a heavy jacket etc - give people the benefit of the doubt and let them live.

The police had a choice - and they made the wrong choice - and there should be consequences.

I bet everyone who is in jail, had a reason for what they did, and i bet some have a really good reason. - the police show no mercy on them.

If police can commmit crimes and just apologise, so should alll criminals.

cyth phoenix ur attitude is shit.

People don't commonly carry around signs saying 'terrorist'. If the threat from terrorism, or more specifically suicide bombers was none other than the Hollywood notion of every criminal waving guns and giving perfect and unmistakable justification to be shot then it wouldn't be one of the most serious issues of the last five years.

Certain people in this thead taking the predictable angle of 'It was wrong so all cops should die' or 'Why did it have to be five shots??' need to wake up and realise that this is not a black and white issue, it isn't even a clear-cut moral choice. Suicide bombers create a unique threat, one that has yet to have an effective, proven solution. It is incredibly easy to spin a moral one-liner - "Is it right for police to shoot civilians for running from them!?", and the easy moral answer is of course no. However it is hard to deny that suicide bombing isn't appropriately accounted for in current policing methods - especially British, considering most of their offices up until recently did not carry firearms.

As I said before, it isn't clear-cut. An officer isn't going to have that lovely moment where the suicide bomber pulls the trigger button out of his pocket and get ready to press it. An officer isn't going to be on the spot and have the luxury of knowing if he has disabled a person's central nervous system yet.

The problem isn't simple, it isn't clear-cut, and the answer isn't going to be obvious when actions need to be taken. That's the problem, and like many you people will no doubt face throughout your lives, there is no easy answer and there may not be a good moral choice.

I realise that it's a cop-out to go for a neutral view in this thread, but that is indicative of the problem itself. On a side note, it may be of interest to some that this isn't the first time a 'shoot to kill' policy has been used in Britain, and there were some very regrettable incidents then also.

 

[tattoodguy]

But you shouldnt shoot suspects.

People should be given the benefit of doubt, unless ur certain --u dont shoot someone.

I dont have a problem with them killing terrorists to defend themselves and the public etc, but they cant fuck up.

They made a decision and there should be consequences - thats just common sense.

We can say he was trying to do something goood? but the reality is he didnt.

how many criminals have goood intentions? im sure alot do - but they are sent to jail and so should the police.

 

[Cyan_phoeniX]

When its a certainty and its definetely a terrorist - ie he has a gun pointed at someone etc - by all means blow his head off.

But merely being a suspect, or wearing a heavy jacket etc - give people the benefit of the doubt and let them live.

The police had a choice - and they made the wrong choice - and there should be consequences.

I bet everyone who is in jail, had a reason for what they did, and i bet some have a really good reason. - the police show no mercy on them.

If police can commmit crimes and just apologise, so should alll criminals.

cyth phoenix ur attitude is shit.

That is where your logic fails you. Terrorists don't have guns, or anything obvious. You tend to not know for certain that a person is a terrorist until you see a bomb (which would require you to be able to see through their bags) or your blown up.

Next is the fallacy, which others have also expressed, in thinking that 'if innocent people are in jail who dont deserve to be there, then the police who stuffed up should be in there too.' Why think that we should accept the antecedent? I would say, none of them deserve to be in there and we shouldnt accept any of it.

If anything, your attitude alone is shit tattodguy, because while all of us may disagree on whether it was right/wrong for what the police are doing, and either way doesnt have a clear answer, your too dam focused on making sure the police are jailed soley relying on the premise 'because innocent people have been jailed' ( hinting that a wrong should be continued) without thinking to criticise that premise. very lame.

but.......we.....should......expect..... that...from........you............by ........now..... shouldnt.....we?

 

[HotShot]

That is where your logic fails you. Terrorists don't have guns, or anything obvious. You tend to not know for certain that a person is a terrorist until you see a bomb (which would require you to be able to see through their bags) or your blown up.

Next is the fallacy, which others have also expressed, in thinking that 'if innocent people are in jail who dont deserve to be there, then the police who stuffed up should be in there too.' Why think that we should accept the antecedent? I would say, none of them deserve to be in there and we shouldnt accept any of it.

If anything, your attitude alone is shit tattodguy, because while all of us may disagree on whether it was right/wrong for what the police are doing, and either way doesnt have a clear answer, your too dam focused on making sure the police are jailed soley relying on the premise 'because innocent people have been jailed' ( hinting that a wrong should be continued) without thinking to criticise that premise. very lame.

but.......we.....should......expect..... that...from........you............by ........now..... shouldnt.....we?

SO your are saying ppl with hidden guns and bombs are terrorists? well i think detective fall into that category. How can you say a person is a terrorist? and what rite do you have or the police have to terminate his life regardless if he is or not a terrorist. Not only are you killing potentially innocent people, you are also giving more motifs for terrorists. Terrorists and their supporters will use this in future to justify their action. What difference is there between the police who killed and a terrorist? I think you have a stereotypical view of terrorists that they all have bombs and guns - - they dont not all do so it is difficult to point out a terrorist unless of course they come out and say so (OSAMA)-- it is interesting terrorism has not been fought before?they were terrorists in the past? but why didnt they act before? is it because the government feels they are losing war against terrorism? are they afraid and so they tooo turn to extremism by killing ppl on the fact they could have been terrorists. THat man was innocently shot and cannot be brought back, he cannot come back and there is no excuse from the police, they killed an innocent ironically their job is to protect the innocent. Was he going set of bomb? even then do you have the rite to kill him? with out verifying his identity? i mean they have been so patient with terrorists over the years why so suddenly? kill innocent ppl?

 

[Cyan_phoeniX]

SO your are saying ppl with hidden guns and bombs are terrorists? well i think detective fall into that category. How can you say a person is a terrorist? and what rite do you have or the police have to terminate his life regardless if he is or not a terrorist. Not only are you killing potentially innocent people, you are also giving more motifs for terrorists. Terrorists and their supporters will use this in future to justify their action. What difference is there between the police who killed and a terrorist? I think you have a stereotypical view of terrorists that they all have bombs and guns - - they dont not all do so it is difficult to point out a terrorist unless of course they come out and say so (OSAMA)-- it is interesting terrorism has not been fought before?they were terrorists in the past? but why didnt they act before? is it because the government feels they are losing war against terrorism? are they afraid and so they tooo turn to extremism by killing ppl on the fact they could have been terrorists. THat man was innocently shot and cannot be brought back, he cannot come back and there is no excuse from the police, they killed an innocent ironically their job is to protect the innocent. Was he going set of bomb? even then do you have the rite to kill him? with out verifying his identity? i mean they have been so patient with terrorists over the years why so suddenly? kill innocent ppl?

what the hell are you on about? half of your ramble makes no sense, the other half of it has already been said, and to the latter i have already said what i think. Agree or dont agree, most of us have said what we feel and are already past all this.

I mean, honestly, read the first sentence of your bloody post. 'SO your are saying ppl with hidden guns and bombs are terrorists? well i think detective fall into that category.' I actually said terrorists dont have guns (maybe i should have said, they dont usually have guns then), but eitherway, wtf are you trying to say?

'and what rite do you have or the police have to terminate his life regardless if he is or not a terrorist.' Haha! are you kidding me? Your saying a real terrorist should never be killed? We KNOW a person is a terrorsit, They are about to blow people up, but a policeman shouldnt kill them? You are lost.

Next time, write an argument in proper English (which isnt just repeating what others have said), and is something that counters something ive actually talked about. It would also be great if you could also have read all my posts (and others) in this thread before you ramble on. Had you done that, you would have realised how useless and irrelevant your post is.

 

[HotShot]

what the hell are you on about? half of your ramble makes no sense, the other half of it has already been said, and to the latter i have already said what i think. Agree or dont agree, most of us have said what we feel and are already past all this.

I mean, honestly, read the first sentence of your bloody post. 'SO your are saying ppl with hidden guns and bombs are terrorists? well i think detective fall into that category.' I actually said terrorists dont have guns (maybe i should have said, they dont usually have guns then), but eitherway, wtf are you trying to say?

'and what rite do you have or the police have to terminate his life regardless if he is or not a terrorist.' Haha! are you kidding me? Your saying a real terrorist should never be killed? We KNOW a person is a terrorsit, They are about to blow people up, but a policeman shouldnt kill them? You are lost.

Next time, write an argument in proper English (which isnt just repeating what others have said), and is something that counters something ive actually talked about. It would also be great if you could also have read all my posts (and others) in this thread before you ramble on. Had you done that, you would have realised how useless and irrelevant your post is.

LOL you have basically said nothing! I am saying how can you tell if a person is a terrorist? Apparently the brazillan man was a terrorist but he wasnt and yet he was shot? Is that fair? How do you know a person is a terrorist? If you are saying i am repeating why do focken get hyped? LOL. THe police is stop them from blowing people up and last resort is too kill them! I mean what difference does it make if the police can go kill ppl claiming they are terrorists than the terrorists themselves?

 

[Meldrum]

Sadly, I agree with you hotshot.

The situation has gotten to a stage where if we don't let police control every aspect of our lives, we will be invaded by these "arab extremists". Prey to our own insecurities. Prey to conservative propoganda.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

http://smh.com.au/ffxmedia/2005/08/17/DeMenezesfactvfiction.jpg

http://smh.com.au/news/world/the-lo...-police-fantasy/2005/08/17/1123958125899.html