An Inflammatory Insight into the London Shooting Yesterday (3019 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.34 on 121 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Rad™®© (View user info) at 2005-07-23 07:23:39 EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050722.w2london07221/BNStory/International/
Earlier Friday, undercover police shot and killed a man at the Stockwell Underground station after he was "challenged" by investigators and ran, jumping a subway turnstile and heading for a train. British media have reported that police are believed to be under orders to shoot to kill if they believe someone is about to set off a bomb.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
What are your police officials thinking?
I mean, I understand that you have been attacked twice in as many weeks, but chasing a suspect down in a tube station and then shooting him dead right there? Talk about shooting first and asking questions later.
I mean, really. Are you a bunch of cowboys now? We, as Americans, have yet to do the same thing to any terrorist suspect being apprehended on our soil. What makes it okay for you to do it?
American police used to have the right to shoot what was termed as a "fleeing felon". That meant anyone being apprehended in a felony investigation ran from the police was likely to get shot if they were getting away. This applied to unarmed as well as armed people.
The US Supreme Court came to a decision in 1985 (Tennessee v. Garner) that shooting an unarmed fleeing felon would no longer be tolerated, and a reasonableness standard would be applied to deadly force cases. This meant that a police officer would have to follow a specific continuum of force in order to utilize deadly force (using the gun).
In Jolly Olde England, I would imagine that there are a lot less instances of deadly force situations, and that firearms are outlawed for the most part. Except that you have agents of the Government who are allowed to carry firearms. But besides that, a citizen would generally not have a gun. Fine.
Now, pretend you are a minor thief. You ride busses and trains all day picking the pockets of your fellow passengers. You stash your ill-gotten gains in your oversized rucksack. You then notice a couple of Sir Bobby's Boyos checking you out. You bail.
A foot chase commences. You run and run, and are keeping distance away from them. You decide to hit the next tube station and see if you can lose them there. You run and run, and are about to hop the turnstyle (do you even have those in the queue?), when you feel hot, searing lead piercing your body back to front. You fall over and bleed out. Ow, death.
The constabulary says that they thought you were a "turrist"
"OH SO FUCKING WHAT RAD? HE WAS A PICKPOCKET NO ONE CARES." You may shout at me.
Consider this.
London, 2007. You are waiting in the tube station for your train. You are brown. You are carrying a briefcase. You are tired, you are wet (from the rain silly), and you just want to get home. A group of official looking people start giving you grief about how you look, where you are standing in relation to the other passengers, your body language, and they want to search you and your belongings. You politely decline and proceed to the train. They get upset and being to order you to comply. You get angry and you tell them to "Sod off". You turn and enter the train. They shoot. You die.
A little scary, eh, putting your life in the hands of armed government officials when you have no way to protect yourself from them.
BUT THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN HERE, RAD. WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR CITIZENS FROM TERRORISTS RAD.
True.
But I guess that is the main difference between the stiff upper lip and the spirit of freedom.
Security is nothing without liberty.
What is my whole point?
Citizens need to be armed; not to be safe from each other, but to be safe from the government.
derka derka derka shamone.
User Reviews
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-06-09 03:53:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oh I so pwned everyone in this post
i rule
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-09-02 01:35:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
recalc
Submitted by Travisty (user info) at 2005-08-23 12:56:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Over_There (user info) at 2005-08-17 18:46:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Just goes to show you, never trust what you hear on the news. One day everybody is certain of the story and what happened, then the truth comes out.
I keep trying to tell people this, but nobody seems to listen.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-17 02:17:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.itv.com/news/index_1677571.html
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-17 02:10:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you're right.
All ferners should be executed at leisure of armed agents of the government.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2005-08-17 01:49:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
BUT HE WAS FORREN!!!!!!!!
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-17 01:36:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
today the metropolitan police admitted to this.
Apparently the police took him off the train he was on, pinned him onto the ground, and summarily executed him.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-29 02:05:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket
Relatives say Met admits that, contrary to reports, electrician did not leap tube station barrier
Mark Honigsbaum
Thursday July 28, 2005
The Guardian
Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead in the head, was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday.
Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with the Metropolitan police, Vivien Figueiredo, 22, said that the first reports of how her 27-year-old cousin had come to be killed in mistake for a suicide bomber on Friday at Stockwell tube station were wrong.
Article continues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He used a travel card," she said. "He had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket. But even if he was wearing a bulky jacket that wouldn't be an excuse to kill him."
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-26 12:16:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-26 08:03:38 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-26 07:49:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
security without liberty is tyranny.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
liberty without security is anarchy.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
prosperity without university is comedy.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-26 11:58:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Rad is right, you can't go around gunning people down in the street.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-26 08:03:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-26 07:49:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
security without liberty is tyranny.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
liberty without security is anarchy.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-26 07:49:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
security without liberty is tyranny.
Submitted by Bellebrown (user info) at 2005-07-26 05:50:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I totally understand and back what that police officer had to do.
He didnt have a choice - we've got 52 dead, 700 injured from the first bombs and we were LUCKY to get away with the second attack.
The shoot to kill policy is the right.
And I'd rather that than a load of mullet headed morons wandering round with guns "protecting themselves".
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-07-26 04:21:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Rad, your skills of getting on most heated is fucking incredible. Nice going...again and again!
Submitted by Fabit (user info) at 2005-07-26 03:57:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Your normally very cool. But this sucked ass. He was a brazilian man who was under surveilance. It turns out his Visa had expired and so he ran away so he didn't get deported. Its the worst case of crossed wires but i do support the police fully. I saw a sky news survey and so does the rest of the country.
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2005-07-26 02:46:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
An amusing picture for you, Rad: http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=1122360336313913586
Submitted by Lunch_Pail (user info) at 2005-07-26 02:20:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
bottom line: stupid ass mother fucker should not have ran from the cops
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2005-07-25 21:34:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Woops.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2005-07-25 21:34:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-25 21:01:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
Anansie and I see eye to eye on this evidently.
Look, I am a right wing reactionary, according to most of you.
But here is the truth.
I believe in holding people accountable for their actions.
This makes me different from most of you.
I like to believe that it makes me better, more moralistic, or more ethical than most of you.
How many of you hold people accountable for their actions?
I mean, just look at the liberal, idealistic people running Übermadness and the mess that turned out to be.
I mean, JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE dO YOU REALLY NEED IT SPELLED OUT FOR YOU?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you get a bunch of liberal, idealistic people together things usually turns out bad. I'm liberal and idealistic, but I wouldn't put a bunch of me in a room together and tell them to make important decisions because all the mes would do is argue. Christ did that make any sense?
Also, people, here's some more links.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/07/23/international/i151140D51.DTL
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/police-gunned-down-innocent-man/2005/07/24/1121539197926.html?oneclick=true
My local paper's site: http://www.newsobserver.com/nation_world/story/2625565p-9061910c.html
This isn't the same article I read. But it seems there is no way to tell if the officers identified themselves or not. You've got witnesses saying they did. You've got some saying they didn't. Who knows what happened, really. I'm sure they feel bad about it. But there should still be some accountability.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-25 21:01:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Anansie and I see eye to eye on this evidently.
Look, I am a right wing reactionary, according to most of you.
But here is the truth.
I believe in holding people accountable for their actions.
This makes me different from most of you.
I like to believe that it makes me better, more moralistic, or more ethical than most of you.
How many of you hold people accountable for their actions?
I mean, just look at the liberal, idealistic people running Übermadness and the mess that turned out to be.
I mean, JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE dO YOU REALLY NEED IT SPELLED OUT FOR YOU?
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2005-07-25 20:56:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Deport him for what? He was living there legally and had been for four years.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2005-07-25 20:53:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Did anyone read the link I posted down there? EVERYTHING I've read in the past day has stated clearly that they were PLAINCLOTHES officers. The News and Observer, my local paper, claims that witnesses did not hear the officers identify themselves. Several other reports state that the man lived in the same APARTMENT COMPLEX as the people the officers were tracking. They saw a dark skinned man in what they considered suspicious clothing and they chased him. IF they didn't identify themselves, as the witnesses claim, then no one can blame the guy for running. If they did identify themselves, then he shouldn't have ran. But that is what is up for debate. Did the officers identify themselves? They say they did. No witnesses can confirm this, but they can't deny it either. If he was legitimate then why did he run? Either they are lying about identifying themselves, or he was up to something illegal. But if he was, they would have said so, because it would have at least justified their actions somewhat. So I say they are probably lying.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2005-07-25 12:18:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Citizens need to be armed; not to be safe from each other, but to be safe from the government
==============
Yea! A few idiots with guns will take forever to kill everyone, but if you give ALL the idiots guns we'll all get shot the fuck up in record time!
YEEE HAW
God bless AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-07-25 12:04:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The fucker ran.
He obviously chose death over dealing with authorities that could possibly deport him.
I don't agree with your point. Mainly because I don't believe most people are responsible enough to own guns.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-25 11:27:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That is my only comment on your review. I'm not sure where you got the rest of my opinions from
--------------
Thin air. Sorry mate, I got a little carried away. I've been commenting on this issue for days now.
Seriously though (Ihave to stop saying that), rozzers catch robbers. They aren't meant to stop people being robbers.
Do you know that in the UK we have made it against policy for police officers to chase speeding vehicles? Now the cops take a picture of the car (if possible) and just report it. The next day they gather up the car, contact the owner and try to track down the perps after the fact. It's much safer and far fewer people have been killed in high speed accidents as a consequence.
Just goes to show that there's a right way and a wrong way to tackle every situation.
Submitted by funk_boy (user info) at 2005-07-25 11:17:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
woh there berty. you've made many assumptions there. my beef was with the sentence:
"in fact it's not even their job to prevent crimes, people are free to commit crimes as they wish"
I said nothing about being micromanaged by the government.
I certainly would never say something as anally retentive as "But such freedom must be defended! The price of victory is eternal vigilance!". I simply don't care / have enough time to evaluate and construct a valid argument regarding this issue right now. My viewpoint on it at the moment is simple. There's bugger all i can do - and I will not change what I do or where i go because of a few wallies. Whether they're terrorists or police being wallies, i don't care. There has always been, is, and always be wallies being wallies.
Looking specifically at that one sentence. You are saying policing has nothing to do with crime Prevention?????
That is my only comment on your review. I'm not sure where you got the rest of my opinions from.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-07-25 10:59:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The more I get to know about this the more I think it was just a terrible mistake, caused by panic and inexperience on the part of the police involved. It is extremely rare to see anyone with a gun in the UK- police or criminal- I don't think I ever have. It's entirely likely that the top cops involved just made the wrong split second descision, based on the fact that they were faced with what they thought was a suicide bomber. The whole scenario is really odd- turns out the real suspects lived in the flat below him or something.
I'm not a believer in the death penalty, but I still think that sometimes soldiers and police have to act in the heat of the moment. I would have been first in line to criticise if he had got onto the train and blown up another 20 people?
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-25 10:57:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by funk_boy (user info) at 2005-07-25 07:41:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
"in fact it's not even their job to prevent crimes, people are free to commit crimes as they wish"
that sentence is the most stupid thing i have ever read on this website.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does everyone feel the same way on this? That we should all be micromanaged by the government? That public officials should no longer be considered public servants but divine arbitrators of life and death?
*sigh*
Ok, deal. You can have the queen and the right to rule via the mandate of heaven, we'll take the US constitution and the bill of rights.
Seriously though. You are free, that's not a joke and that is not a bizzare interperetation of reality. If you want to you can murder your boss or drag that pretty administrator into the supply cabinate and brutally sodomise her. I grant you that your victims will try and stop you but the police won't, I dare say they will attempt to prosecute after the fact but they aren't recording your thoughts to pre-empt your actions. They aren't viewing you permanently on video cameras to make sure you behave yourself. You CAN actually do these things. You can go out and rape and murder and steal and break the law as much as you want because no one will stop you. Your free.
The only thing that stops us from doing these things is the consequences, not the consequences of being punished by the authorities but because it's actually not an easy thing to be driven to these acts. I don't kill my boss because I'm afraid of the boys in blue. I don't kill him because then he really will be dead, his kids will be orphaned and his wife widdowed.
Now I'm, evidently, a progressive thinker (a thought that, considering the subject matter, scares the bejebus out of me for all sorts of reasons) so I'm going to have to assume that Johnny fives stars out there see's things a little differently. Perhaps they occaisonally call police officers 'Daddy'. I don't know, but it does seem that they cannot grasp these basic fundamental attributes of our society. It's a marvellous thing to be free and very easy to take for granted.
Look at nations where people are not free and compare your life to the lives of the hapless folk living there. China, where your not allowed to raise a family outside of government guidelines. Mozambeace (sp?) where if you are from a certain area, where there was previously opposition to the government, you aren't allowed to live. Your literally moved on/killed whenever you come into contact with the authorities. Regardless of how you actually feel, regardless of your wishes or desires. You can be down on your knees, spitting through chocked tears that you will always be faithfull to the powers of justice and they will still kick you in the throat and beat your family to death in front of you.
"But such freedom must be defended! The price of victory is eternal vigilance!"
You say.
That's cool. If you want to go out and kick the hornets nest in the name of freedom and democracy then go right ahead. Fuck it, if it means I can fill up my car for less than £20 I'll join you. However you fuck with the home civilian populace at your own peril, look at the horrible shit that followed nixon and the Macarthy(sp?) witchunts. All in the name of 'homeland security'.
Also never delude yourself that bullets, guns and war will ever solve the problem of terrorism. Terrorism is born of political strife, I don't agree with it as a method for political change but I at least understand where it comes from. In the instance of the US and the UK it comes from Israel and Palestine. Untill that problem is resolved you can have all the security you want, you can start commiting genocide in foreign lands and at home, you can be watched by the divine authorities while you eat, shit and fuck but you'll never stop the damn bombs going off.
Maybe I have a different perspective on this sort of thing. We've had terrorism in the UK for years and know that if someone is going to do something all the coppers on the streets with all the guns in the world aren't going to stop them. The US is a beautiful country with some of the most progressive social innovations implemented since it's creation. Don't throw all of that away because of your misplaced fear.
Submitted by Over_There (user info) at 2005-07-25 10:54:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
It's impossible for any of us to say definitively whether this was right or wrong. None of us were there, we didn't see what happened, we didn't even hear what happened from and unbiased source that was directly involved. We have to go on what we read in the press, which for the most part NEVER presents all the information or a clear and full description of what actually happened. It's not necessarily because the media is trying to deceive us, but like us, they weren't there, they just don't know what really happened.
For the most part, I would tend to favor rad's point of view, I am against the police use of deadly force unless absolutely necessary.
But in this case, if the story that has been told is an accurate description of what happened, I would be in support of the police using deadly force.
It's perfectly acceptable to come to an opinion about an event based on what's reported in the news, but you have to accept your opinion may be wrong because you are only hearing a partial version of the story or even an incorrect version of the story.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-25 09:04:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Berty does have kind of an extreme point of view on law and order, but at least he gets where I am coming from.
Submitted by funk_boy (user info) at 2005-07-25 07:41:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"in fact it's not even their job to prevent crimes, people are free to commit crimes as they wish"
that sentence is the most stupid thing i have ever read on this website.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-25 05:31:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Even if this man was wired with explosives and not a confused tourist the police do not have the right to gun down people as they see fit. That isn't their job, in fact it's not even their job to prevent crimes, people are free to commit crimes as they wish. It is the police's job to apprehend people after they commit an offense. That is a statement of fact and there is a good reason why the system works this way.
This isn't the first time this has happened, earlier a man was shot because the table leg he was holding was mistaken with a shotgun. Incredible really, the only thing that would be more amazing would be if the police jumped on someone, had four men restrain him and then shoot him five times in the head.
Oh wait...
I don't care what your opinion is on the police and gun's, I don't care how paranoid you are about terrorist bombing and I certainly don't care about absurd, inherantly flawed, utilitarian argument. That is just bad policing.
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2005-07-25 04:24:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
its the first time they held a gun mate - they didnt actually know it could kill someone
Submitted by Pseudovillain (user info) at 2005-07-25 03:45:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
The most fun part?
...Friday, UNDERCOVER POLICE shot and killed...
That means no uniforms. These people look like joe fucking average.
'challenged?' wtf is that supposed to mean?
"HEY, BUDDY! LET'S SEE WHAT'S IN THAT BRIEFCASE!"
I'd run, too.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-25 03:17:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-25 02:21:36 (#)
Ranking: 2
Collateral damage.
----------------
FUCK YEAH COLLATERAL DAMAGE.
ALL YOU BLEEDING HEARTS AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEFEND THE ACTIONS OF THESE POLICE.
IT BOILS DOWN TO THE SAME THING.
COLLATERAL DAMAGE
-==--=-=-=-=-=
I'd just like to say that I truly believe the Allied armies are doing their best to avoid civilian deaths in Iraq and I'd never use the "Collateral Damage" excuse as a means to criticise the Bush government. It's the "why" in Iraq, not the "how" that puts me against the war.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-25 02:44:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That's bullshit and you know it.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-25 02:21:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Collateral damage.
----------------
FUCK YEAH COLLATERAL DAMAGE.
ALL YOU BLEEDING HEARTS AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEFEND THE ACTIONS OF THESE POLICE.
IT BOILS DOWN TO THE SAME THING.
COLLATERAL DAMAGE
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-25 02:20:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No news report mentions if the officers in question were even in uniform.
How would you react to a plainclothes yelling at you to stop and get on the ground?
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-25 02:19:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-07-24 22:49:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
i read that they had the guys house under surveillance before they
even confronted him at the train station.
--------------
they had an apartment in the same complex as this guy under surveillance. Not his apartment, mind you, but just one in the same complex. They say him exiting the complex with a rucksack and a large coat and his brown skin and decided that he was a suspect. They then chased him down in a tube station, caught him, pinned him down on the ground, then put 5 in his head and torso.
This is the overreaction that everyone expected the US to do after 911, but we didn't did we?
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-25 02:16:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2005-07-24 16:07:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually, until yesterday, London was the last place I expected to be executed by the police for running from them, with your "Gun-Control" so under control. Why should a citizen fear death by running from the police into a train? Because of all the attacks?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YES because of the attacks. I'm not saying that its not a tradegy but for gods sake Rad they had to do their job and as said below - if someone ran up to the president with a chocolate revolver - your guys would shoot him too.
----------
But you are the UK and we are Amerikkka and you always take the moral high ground, right?
RIGHT?
I could have sworn by the popular world opinion that you guys would never stoop to the same kinds of actions the USA has taken, or even further (like friday)
I THOUGHT YOU ALL WERE BETTER THAN US.
IF SO, HOW DARE YOU COMPARE YOURSELVES, YOU ALREADY HAVE SET A HIGHER STANDARD
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-07-24 22:49:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i read that they had the guys house under surveillance before they
even confronted him at the train station.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-24 21:10:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The guy could've still blown up the train when pinned on the ground. All he would have to do would be push a small button hidden somewhere. Considering the guy ran from the cops, I'd assume he would be fighting back when pushed on the ground. It would have seemed like he was trying to detonate his explosives.
Bad fucking luck for that guy.
But hey. Collateral damage. Give a guy running from the cops and jumping turnstiles the benefit of the doubt at the risk of godknows how many lives isn't a risk I'd take. The cop did the right thing by shooting him with the information and risks he had.
Submitted by Garrik (user info) at 2005-07-24 20:52:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It sounded like cold blooded murder, but everyone knows half our police are just thugs, now they are thugs with guns and permission to shoot, hurrah. They probably thought they'd teach Johnny Arab a lesson, only they fucked up somewhat badly. I'm not in possession of all the facts but if it's true they pinned him down and then shot him 5 times I can't see how it can qualify as anything else but an execution and therefore those officers should stand trial.
Submitted by Maddog (user info) at 2005-07-24 16:13:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No more Carnival for that mofo. Whoop-Whoop!
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2005-07-24 16:09:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sebcharrot (user info) at 2005-07-23 16:08:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
hey merlina, I agree with you, just read my previous comments
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
yeah I know seb, hon.
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2005-07-24 16:07:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually, until yesterday, London was the last place I expected to be executed by the police for running from them, with your "Gun-Control" so under control. Why should a citizen fear death by running from the police into a train? Because of all the attacks?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YES because of the attacks. I'm not saying that its not a tradegy but for gods sake Rad they had to do their job and as said below - if someone ran up to the president with a chocolate revolver - your guys would shoot him too.
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2005-07-24 15:51:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oops!
<safe>
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2005-07-24 15:48:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Lean to the left
Lean to the right
See who fights the most
And write write write!
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-24 13:46:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
YOU CERTAINLY DONT SEE SHIT LIKE THAT GOING ON HERE
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-24 13:46:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The man shot Friday at the Stockwell subway station was identified as Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, a Brazilian citizen. Witnesses said he was wearing a heavy padded coat when plainclothes police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him five times in the head and torso in front of horrified passengers.
----------------------
THEY HAD HIM ON THE GROUND AND THEN SHOT HIM IN HEAD AND CHEST.
HE WAS ALREADY CAUGHT AND THEY EXECUTED HIM.
JUSTIFY THAT.
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2005-07-24 12:27:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Someone set us up the bomb.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-07-24 11:31:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, some more recent info from todays paper. As I understood it.
This guy lived in an apartment complex, and one of his neighbouring flats was under surveillance by the police. The police did not see him leaving the flat under observation, but rather saw him leave the complex. From this point on he was tailed, under the assumption that because of his suspicious attire and dark complexion he had exited the suspicious flat. It seems he was the first person to leave the area who fitted the image of a terrorist after the surveillance began.
So the police had his suspicious attire, his supposed jump over the turnstiles (this seems iffy, the paper and CNN both doubt this happened) and his refusal to stop, plus the erroneous assumption that he had just left a believed terrorist address. The police thought this was the case at the time, remember.
It seems this man was a victim of extreme misfortune, plus his one genuine mistake of running from the police. And we'll never know what he was thinking when he did that.
Let me reiterate that for people who didn't catch it. This man had no terrorist links. He was a Brazilian legally living and working in the UK. He wore the wrong clothes on the wrong day and lived in the wrong place at the wrong time. And when he was threatened by armed police he panicked.
He was not a "piece of shit" as some on this site have called him. He made one mistake, and he paid for it with his life.
We can only hope it does not happen again.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-24 05:43:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
bmitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-24 04:25:39 (#)
Ranking: 2
WOOO BEER!
XXXX, golden liquor of the gods.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-24 05:13:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
He was a fucking idiot for running anyway.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-07-24 05:01:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If I ran away from police, jumped over a ticket barrier and got on a train I would expect to be shot in the current climate, our police don't normally have guns.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-24 04:45:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Let it be known I become a raving patriot when drunk-frunk.
Just warnin oyu all now.....
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-24 04:25:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
WOOO BEER!
XXXX, golden liquor of the gods.
Submitted by jack0173 (user info) at 2005-07-24 03:52:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-24 03:30:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
justifying by saying the police warned the people about their shoot to kill policy of its citizens, or questioning the thing by saying "What did you expect by running from the cops" doesn't make it right.
Actually, until yesterday, London was the last place I expected to be executed by the police for running from them, with your "Gun-Control" so under control. Why should a citizen fear death by running from the police into a train? Because of all the attacks?
A mob mentality doesn't make it right.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-07-24 01:09:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
does it say what he was wearing?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-07-24 00:23:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-23 10:04:48 (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, you make no fucking sense.
Just another example of your backwards thinking, where the US military is evil incarnate and the police should be able to kill whoever whenever.
-----------------
In the course of two weeks there have been a total of 8 bombings in the city, and this guy is jumping a turnstile and ignoring police warnings to halt...
That's like running up the the President of the United States with a chocolate revolver in hand. Sure you were innocently trying to give him the delicious gift of chocolate, but you can't really blame the secret service men who blew your ass away because they didn't have time to stop you and smell the fucking thing!
We're talking about a situation where an officer had to make a split-second decision to shoot or not to shoot...and when you've got a trainload of people looking to you for protection, it wouldn't be surprising if any one of us did the same thing in that position.
Sure, it's a tragedy and all, but let that be a message to anyone jumping the fucking turnstile and ignoring police from now on! Hell, they told the public they'd be shooting to kill.
Submitted by Calios (user info) at 2005-07-24 00:23:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Everybody knows, If the Police have to come and get you, They're bringing an ass kickin' with them.
-Chris Rock
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2005-07-23 23:28:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ok, forget my theory about him not speaking English.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/23/london.tube/index.html
He lived London for four years.
Ok. I'm going to bed. This issue gets to me for some reason.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2005-07-23 23:20:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
For all we know they lied about tracking the guy. For all we know they had been tracking him for a day. They probably knew immediately that they had fucked up and started coming up with excuses. If they had been tracking him like they said, then they would have already known he was a fucking Brazilian.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2005-07-23 23:16:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I haven't checked the replies but I'm sure the word is out that the guy was innocent. He was Brazilian, and the cops were plain clothes officers. According to my local newspaper, he tripped and fell and was on the ground when he was shot five times. According to the NPR, he had no connection whatsoever to the bombings. I don't know why he was running but you never know. Maybe he couldn't speak english and five guys with guns start coming after him and he ran not knowing what the fuck was up? Maybe he was a pickpocket or something like you said.
Good call.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-23 20:59:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-23 20:31:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
Looks like I was correct.
Brits, your government now has the right to execute you without trial if one police officer believes you are going to blow some shit up.
Hows that for progressive enlightenment?
=-=-=-=--==--==-
Q: Do the cops have to tell them they're under arrest first? I'm sure a cop has to still give you a chance to surrender peacefully to await a trial.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-23 20:31:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Looks like I was correct.
Brits, your government now has the right to execute you without trial if one police officer believes you are going to blow some shit up.
Hows that for progressive enlightenment?
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-07-23 19:57:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Honestly, if you run from the police and try to hop onto a train that someone attempted to bomb the day before...should you expect anything less than getting gunned down? It really doesn't matter if he did or didn't have connections to the terrorists...
Of course, listen to the people like Zakalwe and the next time someone runs onto the train and the police are unable to do anything about it ...then BLAM! 50 more dead.
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2005-07-23 19:03:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You are ALL fucking pathetic.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-07-23 18:44:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Zakalwe hates what I say because he has just got off breast milk last week and his eyes are still shut to the reality of the real world. I hope all brits aren't mollycoddled like that pussy is during their life.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-07-23 18:41:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-07-23 14:10:22 (#)
Ranking: 0
oh yeah, and I'm a spineless self-hating Euro liberal who loves Islam and terrorism. I've heard it all before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is exactly what you are. The guy was being tracked...he wasn't just some random dude off the street who ran from the cops. You are a fool... "The guy had nothing to do with it!" and you crying tears for a scumbag like that...pathetic. He was connected to the ones who did, ran from the police, and you want to defend him. You are a muslim extremist sympathizer.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-07-23 18:39:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Stin, I don't think the UK has something as sinister as the ACLU who would cry forever on about an incident like this... do they?
Everyone who supports the ACLU should be shot dead.
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2005-07-23 16:52:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I'm sorry Rad, I like you an' all, but I cannot in good faith give you a happy little positive.
In the current climate, someone did something very stupid and paid the price. Yes it's unfortunate, but it's unfortunate every time a civilian gets killed in Iraq.
I liked this comment:
Submitted by MrWillard (user info) at 2005-07-23 09:38:25 (#)
Ranking: 2
I think its great of the British police to do this. It shows that they're not fucking around...
unlike what we do in the US. Something happens, we sit around for the next two months going "oh, what a tragedy," then we go blame another country and bomb the hell out of them.
But England is saying "this shit is going on in your country, and we're going to stop it here first."
If you think you could run a country better and make the decisions about who should or should not be able to use deadly force when a country has been attacked twice in a little over two weeks, stand for office.
Submitted by Maddog (user info) at 2005-07-23 16:25:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Whoooooo-Hoooooooo!!!!! Open season on Ragheads and Dune-coons! Bring on the flavor!
Submitted by sebcharrot (user info) at 2005-07-23 16:08:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hey merlina, I agree with you, just read my previous comments.
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2005-07-23 14:34:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sebcharrot (user info) at 2005-07-23 13:54:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
Huh. Turns out the guy didn't have anything to do with the bombings.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, turns out he wasn't one of the suicide bombers but one of the people working for that group. I'm not saying that makes it okay, but if the police are aware of this and the dumb twat who IS to do with that group runs away from police and onto a train after the other week then it's a bit stupid.
The police are instructed to shoot to kill if they believe they or members of the public are in immediate danger. If the guy HAD a bomb on him there would be 50 more dead people. If he was so innocent and nothig to do with terroism.... why the hell was he running away from armed police.
Submitted by Gdoub (user info) at 2005-07-23 14:18:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Elton john would make a great cop
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-07-23 14:10:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oh yeah, and I'm a spineless self-hating Euro liberal who loves Islam and terrorism. I've heard it all before.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-07-23 14:08:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the BBC is now saying the guy had nothing to do with the bombings, and that this was a "tragedy".
I was actually going to post about this, since I had an altercation with stabby over it yesterday. He denounced the dead man as a "piece of shit" and endorsed the killing, despite the total lack of info on what happened. of course, the police on the ground may have been operating on what they thought was good info, but if he turns out to be a solid citizen who panicked then there will most likely be a political shitstorm over this.
here are the words me and stabby exchanged last night, rather than post on it again.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/71413
of course, it may turn out that this was justified. but it's unlikely, as the police would never admit something so damaging to their credibility without being sure of it.
Submitted by sebcharrot (user info) at 2005-07-23 13:54:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Huh. Turns out the guy didn't have anything to do with the bombings.
Submitted by Viciousriffs (user info) at 2005-07-23 13:45:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
What frightens me is not the fact that a governmental hierarchy has determined that citizens cannot wield weapons for their own safety; no, the fact that they believe this to be true, and disarm everybody and leave everyone open to attack- all while believing that it is for their own good- is what scares me.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-07-23 12:59:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
while i don't agree at all....
...i think the thing we're forgetting is how beuracratic the whole police system is...there and here. i'm sure they have all kinds of protocol and training saying, "if x, y, and z, then and only then can you pop a cap in a niggas ass" and shit.
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2005-07-23 12:58:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-23 10:22:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
i figure of all people you, rad, would appreciate eliminating someone on the planet that is stupid enough to run from police officials.
-----
Why would you assume that?
Seems like you and people like you need to worry less about your assumptions and more about what actually is.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
that's, of course, an assumtion you're making that I'd actually spend a fraction of a second to figure what the hell you think. Fact is, i honestly give a fuck and a half less.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-23 12:36:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't ever want to hear you people call american action against the clothheads evil, cowboyish, or any of that, anymore.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-07-23 12:17:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Haha 'You'd be asking "why didn't you shoot him?"'
It's not as though they just went up to him and shot him because he had a thick jacket and a worried look. They asked him to halt and he started looking more paranoid and RAN into THE SUBWAY. C'mon.
Submitted by sebcharrot (user info) at 2005-07-23 12:00:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Forget what I said, Stabkill said it best:
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:33:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
He was being followed and was wearing a thick jacket entering a tube and ran from the police with a terrified look on his face when asked to halt. It was a matter of public safety. Had he gotten on one of those trains and blew it up, would you be posting today, "Why didn't the police shoot him?"
The fact is, the ACLU is shit and looking at it from their perpective is a pussified way of doing things instead of proactive. What does someone have to do to be shot first? Blow up a train full of people? Fuck that. If you run from the police, you need to be tazered, shot, etc. depending on the threat.
Of course, now tazers are being viewed as terrible items rather than a non-lethal means of stopping a potential incident from getting out of hand. Thanks, ACLU.
This PC bullshit world is helped along by the ACLU.
Those cops deserve fucking medals and every possible future terrorist needs to know that these guys will, at moments notice, blow their ass away without thinking twice.
This is an attempt to reach most heated, probably. How can you, out of all people, support the ACLU? Cops hate the ACLU. They are the organization that criminals can always know is there to support them, even if they've molested children or murdered a law-abiding citizen.
Submitted by sebcharrot (user info) at 2005-07-23 11:58:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I've heard that he was posing a direct threat to the station. The man was wearing a large, bulky coat on a very warm day, which was dodgy. Could have been that he had a bomb strapped to him, in which case you have to shoot to kill, or else they can put blow up.
But what do I know, I don't work at Scotland Yard.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-23 11:05:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Obi-wan (user info) at 2005-07-23 10:49:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
If your told to stop by a guy who is carrying a gun "stop or I'll shoot" do you carry on with what your doing thinking he's bluffing or stop.
-------
if its just some guy I'm going to draw down on him and shoot him.
Submitted by Obi-wan (user info) at 2005-07-23 10:49:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If your told to stop by a guy who is carrying a gun "stop or I'll shoot" do you carry on with what your doing thinking he's bluffing or stop.
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2005-07-23 10:42:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually the Israeli government advised the British armed police force to shoot to kill when dealing with a suicide bomber. The guy they shot had his address left in one of the rucksacks where the bomb had failed to go off. They had him under survelliance. They gave him the opportunities to give himself up and he ran onto a train, the police could only assume to set off another bomb. They couldn't take any chances. And the reason why the Israeli government said shoot to kill is when you have a suicide bomber and he is injured he will still set the bomb off. It has happened before.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-23 10:22:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i figure of all people you, rad, would appreciate eliminating someone on the planet that is stupid enough to run from police officials.
-----
Why would you assume that?
Seems like you and people like you need to worry less about your assumptions and more about what actually is.
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2005-07-23 10:05:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
who gives a fuck really? i figure of all people you, rad, would appreciate eliminating someone on the planet that is stupid enough to run from police officials.
but i'm sure you'll prove everyone wrong...even those that agree with you. u r teh samrt lik3 taht.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-23 10:04:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, you make no fucking sense.
Just another example of your backwards thinking, where the US military is evil incarnate and the police should be able to kill whoever whenever.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-07-23 10:02:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
THis post makes no sense.
Anyone skipping a turnstile and hopping a train, ignoring shouts to stop, in this climate is either stupid or has a deathwish.
He deserved what he got. Fucking idiot.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2005-07-23 09:51:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i think terrorism is an excelent excuse for this generation because, you know, we are really lackiing and when you look at the push i mean shit just look at that beautiful cartwheeling insanity of the 60s but we dont have conservatism and we dont have any excuse to go against the norm and norconformity is so fucking normal that people who ARE different cant be different becaus eeveryone and evreything is so fucking precious and unique and everyone is SO fucking tolerant that where are the options huh i mean how can you express yourself when every street corner has 100 hacks oding the same and how do you rise above a sophomoric level of introspection when theres so little, so little fucking impetus
play ball and biscuit very very loudly and drugs become secondary to onoe of the few true expressions that are availab le and not cheap cheap so cheap at the hands of marketers and other common devils
Submitted by MrWillard (user info) at 2005-07-23 09:38:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I didn't read all the comments, so forgive me if I'm redundant.
All freedom aside, wouldn't getting shot be a great deterrient to crime?
I think its great of the British police to do this. It shows that they're not fucking around...
unlike what we do in the US. Something happens, we sit around for the next two months going "oh, what a tragedy," then we go blame another country and bomb the hell out of them.
But England is saying "this shit is going on in your country, and we're going to stop it here first.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2005-07-23 09:22:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Interesting take. They probably don't report all the facts, though.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:49:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think it's awesome how you always denounce your political posts after an hour and a half.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:44:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
right-o the fuckin cops blew away that fuckin cloth head.
I just wanted to call the Brits a bunch of cowboys.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:43:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
actually, this was nonsense.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:37:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, this was about gun control.
Again.
Well, fuck that.
Submitted by mush (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:36:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think it's all about setting precedent and/or changing the culture. If the police are really under a deadly force order then ok: Make it public. If Britain is taking this course they need to properly change the culture. They need to let people know that the police are out there trying to kill terrorists and send a message to the dessert-dwellers that Britain is not going to take shit. It's like this... in my experience the cops are willing to overlook certain things if they are doing the greater good. Example: I'm at frat party and a fight breaks out. I call the cops. Since I called the cops they aren't going to show up and bust my house for giving booze to minors. They are gonna break up the fight and be on their way.
In the same way, if the police are really concerned about a train bombing and the catch a shady-looking petty thief, they probably aren't going to bust the thief: bigger fish to fry. They'll realize he's harmless and be on their way. My analogy might be a bit off, but in general I think this is a perfectly reasonable scenario. Start telling the Brits whats up and everyone will respond properly.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:33:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
He was being followed and was wearing a thick jacket entering a tube and ran from the police with a terrified look on his face when asked to halt. It was a matter of public safety. Had he gotten on one of those trains and blew it up, would you be posting today, "Why didn't the police shoot him?"
The fact is, the ACLU is shit and looking at it from their perpective is a pussified way of doing things instead of proactive. What does someone have to do to be shot first? Blow up a train full of people? Fuck that. If you run from the police, you need to be tazered, shot, etc. depending on the threat.
Of course, now tazers are being viewed as terrible items rather than a non-lethal means of stopping a potential incident from getting out of hand. Thanks, ACLU.
This PC bullshit world is helped along by the ACLU.
Those cops deserve fucking medals and every possible future terrorist needs to know that these guys will, at moments notice, blow their ass away without thinking twice.
This is an attempt to reach most heated, probably. How can you, out of all people, support the ACLU? Cops hate the ACLU. They are the organization that criminals can always know is there to support them, even if they've molested children or murdered a law-abiding citizen.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:30:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:15:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
how does an individual defend themselves against the government?
=--=-=-=-=-==-==-
I could make up some bullshit here, but in all practicality you can't.
There's no way to stop it without causing more damage though.
Submitted by mush (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:24:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
"Ow, death." did make me smile though...
Submitted by mush (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:23:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Old mush would have -2'd this... but it's not a wothless post... I think it's "worth reading", but only because of:
"Citizens need to be armed; not to be safe from each other, but to be safe from the government."
That's definintely one of the more retarded opinions I've heard in a while.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:15:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:14:16 (#)
Ranking: 2
I like how you've defined the problem.
I don't like your solution.
If we're getting into hypotheticals, how about this: Imagine living in a country where people are free to carry concealed weapons and there are 11,000 murders annually.
Actually not so hypothetical.
Maybe a pickpocket or two being shot wrongly is the price for keeping thousands of citizens from killing eachother. Lesser of two evils, and all that.
------------
how does an individual defend themselves against the government?
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:14:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by funk_boy (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:10:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
the line should be drawn in the sand
--------------
Roger dodger!
Take it to them in the desert.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:14:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How is that your point? Where do "evil men" come into it here?
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:14:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I like how you've defined the problem.
I don't like your solution.
If we're getting into hypotheticals, how about this: Imagine living in a country where people are free to carry concealed weapons and there are 11,000 murders annually.
Actually not so hypothetical.
Maybe a pickpocket or two being shot wrongly is the price for keeping thousands of citizens from killing eachother. Lesser of two evils, and all that.
Submitted by funk_boy (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:10:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the line should be drawn in the sand
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-23 07:56:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
My point?
WHere do we draw the line at subjecting ourselves to the tyranny of evil men?
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-23 07:45:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for "Ow, death". I just noticed it.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-23 07:44:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jimthefiend (user info) at 2005-07-23 07:31:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by egadz (user info) at 2005-07-23 07:31:09 (#)
Ranking: 2
Thorpe, you're missing the point.
-------------------------------
Probably. Can you tell me what his point is?
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-23 07:43:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why?
Has it come out yet that the guy was definately a bomber?
If not, these police officers failed the public, and the guy, miserably.
Submitted by Natsukau (user info) at 2005-07-23 07:35:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think its a goddamned shame they only put 5 bullets in the motherfucker.
Submitted by jimthefiend (user info) at 2005-07-23 07:31:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by egadz (user info) at 2005-07-23 07:31:09 (#)
Ranking: 2
Thorpe, you're missing the point.
Submitted by egadz (user info) at 2005-07-23 07:31:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Thorpe, you're missing the point.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-23 07:30:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
WTF?
I am pro police conservative around here, and people tell me im fucking wrong.
So
I play ACLU liberal look at all sides for ones in my life and Im fucking wrong.
Just great.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-23 07:27:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't play devil's advocate just for the hell of it. They had had him under surveillance, and he had wires sticking out his jacket for Christ's sake.