General discussions : Non mobile discussion : Breaking News - More Explosions in London Tube Stations
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> Breaking News - More Explosions in London Tube Stations
Bookmark topic
I may be speculating, yes, but I very much doubt that the police would have been following silently without shouting 'stop, police!' or something like that.
And perhaps they couldn't quite catch him - maybe he had too far a headstart or something - maybe we need 'stingers' like they use on cars to use on people!
And personally, if I was a policeman chasing a man through a tube station, after some attempted bombings, he wasn't stopping, and he then tripped/was tripped onto the floor if I was in that exact situation (assuming these facts are correct, of course) I WOULD empty a clip into them. Period. I don't know what that person is planning. If they detonated a device killing people, I couldn't live with myself for not doing something about it. That's is I wasn't blown to smithereens myself!
The only thing I can think of is that they should of challenged this person outside of the train station. But how? The person going up and challenging him may be putting himself in danger - how does he know whether this person has a bomb or not? How do they isolate him from the rest of the public without him potentially detonating a device?
--
Posted: 2005-07-26 00:26:51
Edit :
Quote
@Sammy. Put simply, with great great difficulty.
This message was posted from a T610
--
Posted: 2005-07-26 00:51:24
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-07-26 00:26:51, Sammy_boy wrote:
... I WOULD empty a clip into them. Period.
That's murder. Period.
Quote:
I don't know what that person is planning.
Precisely. You don't have a defence to the charge of murder.
--
Posted: 2005-07-26 01:45:08
Edit :
Quote
@sammy: it seems that you're channelling scotsboy today
i think the fact that we are being told openly that he was shot eight times (once in the shoulder, the rest in the head) speaks to the integrity of the system.
i don't think there is anything inherently suspicious in there being 8 shots, except that the officer(s) probably overreacted through a combination of anxiety, stress, fear and adrenalin. armed officers are trained to continue firing until the threat is removed, which is generally interpreted as "until the suspect stops moving or is otherwise incapacitated". that is a very subjective assessment, and the result probably says more about the effect of the day's events on the mental state of the officer than it does about his intentions. they probably shot him until he stopped moving, but in the heat of the moment the line between voluntary movement and involuntary spasm/ricochet effect would have been blurred.
now that's not trying to make excuses for what are a tragic set of circumstances (and i have no doubt the officers involved are feeling worse than anyone else outside the guy's family), but it is a possible explanation. i think it really comes down to the fact that the regular police are not trained to deal with what are in essence military threats.
@bri: actually
three shots (not two) is considered the minimum for a guaranteed kill because the head is a smaller and more mobile target than the torso, and hence the chances of missing something vital are greater. it is not uncommon for brain function to continue after two head shots except when a high powered weapon is used.
_________________
Whomsoever you see in distress, recognize in him a fellow man
My new house photos[ This Message was edited by: gelfen on 2005-07-26 01:05 ]
--
Posted: 2005-07-26 02:04:48
Edit :
Quote
Hindsight is a perfect science, which the policeman or policemen at that time didn't have. If that man had been a terrorist, the police would have been hailed as heroes having saved many lives (although it probably wouldn't have been long before an innocent was killed).
@our Bri - what would your suggestion be to tackle terrorists? How is the best way to deal with them? Is there (yet) a way of dealing with this brand of terrorism?
Thinking about it, the Israelies have a shoot to kill policy, which doesn't seem to have stopped the suicide bombers and their leadership. But what do you do instead? Nothing? I suspect there isn't much we can do till technology moves on and explosives can be detected much more easily - we need screens like those in Total Recall that bleep and flash red if someone walks through them with explosives or a gun!
--
Posted: 2005-07-26 07:31:30
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-07-26 07:31:30, Sammy_boy wrote:
@our Bri - what would your suggestion be to tackle terrorists? How is the best way to deal with them? Is there (yet) a way of dealing with this brand of terrorism?
Deal with the illness, not the symptom.
Quote:
Thinking about it, the Israelies have a shoot to kill policy, which doesn't seem to have stopped the suicide bombers and their leadership.
Indeed. And they've killed a lot of innocents people, too. It's such an ineffective policy you might wonder what the real motive is.
--
Posted: 2005-07-26 07:47:11
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-07-26 07:47:11, absinthebri wrote:
Indeed. And they've killed a lot of innocents people, too. It's such an ineffective policy you might wonder what the real motive is.
maybe to get people to leave them alone?
Quote:
On 2005-07-26 07:47:11, absinthebri wrote:
Deal with the illness, not the symptom.
in your opinion, what is the illness?
i would venture that nothing - absolutely nothing - vindicates or justifies the premeditated murder of innocent civilians (including the perpetration of such acts by others).
--
Posted: 2005-07-26 09:36:17
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-07-26 09:36:17, gelfen wrote:
Quote:
On 2005-07-26 07:47:11, absinthebri wrote:
Indeed. And they've killed a lot of innocents people, too. It's such an ineffective policy you might wonder what the real motive is.
maybe to get people to leave them alone?
Perhaps. I would have thought that getting off the land they illegally occupy might lessen tensions, too.
Quote:
Quote:
On 2005-07-26 07:47:11, absinthebri wrote:
Deal with the illness, not the symptom.
in your opinion, what is the illness?
i would venture that nothing - absolutely nothing - vindicates or justifies the premeditated murder of innocent civilians (including the perpetration of such acts by others).
I agree. I'm glad you accept Bush and Blair are war criminals. Justify 20,000 innocent Iraqi deaths to me.
--
Posted: 2005-07-26 10:04:59
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-07-26 10:04:59, absinthebri wrote:
Perhaps. I would have thought that getting off the land they illegally occupy might lessen tensions, too.
the problem is the "legality" varies depending on who you ask. i really don't want to get into an israeli-palestine argument since neither side is wholly innocent or wholly guilty. i will say, however, that i disagree with any philosophy that advocates the eradication of a specific race.
Quote:
On 2005-07-26 10:04:59, absinthebri wrote:
I agree. I'm glad you accept Bush and Blair are war criminals. Justify 20,000 innocent Iraqi deaths to me.
see, now you're being deliberately provocative (and a little willfully ignorant) by trying to put words in my mouth.
the key word you missed in my post was
premeditated. i cannot accept that any member of the so-called "coalition of the willing" went into iraq with the express purpose of killing civillians. WMD or no, there was a clear objective at the outset to remove saddam hussein and install a democratic iraqi government because such a government would likely be "friendly" to the west.
i really don't understand why people think the US want to maintain a military presence to control the oil, because it makes no economic sense. the sheer cost of an prolonged occupation on that scale far outweighs any possible benefit from controlling the oil reserves. they would much rather have a friendly government running a stable country who (in gratitude) sells them the oil at a discount price. the reason they haven't left yet is because the iraqi security force is in no state to break up a bar-room brawl let alone keep the peace.
i think you will also find that a large portion of the "innocent iraqi deaths" are in fact due to the actions of non-iraqi insurgents who crossed the border in an attempt to use iraq as an arena to pursue their own anti-US agendas. the vast majority of civillian deaths attributable to military action should (and are) considered tragic - if sometimes avoidable - accidents rather than a deliberate effort to kill innocent people.
_________________
Whomsoever you see in distress, recognize in him a fellow man
My new house photos[ This Message was edited by: gelfen on 2005-07-26 09:47 ]
--
Posted: 2005-07-26 10:45:48
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-07-26 10:45:48, gelfen wrote:
Quote:
On 2005-07-26 10:04:59, absinthebri wrote:
Perhaps. I would have thought that getting off the land they illegally occupy might lessen tensions, too.
the problem is the "legality" varies depending on who you ask.
I guess I'll accept the UN and International communities view on it.
Quote:
Quote:
On 2005-07-26 10:04:59, absinthebri wrote:
I agree. I'm glad you accept Bush and Blair are war criminals. Justify 20,000 innocent Iraqi deaths to me.
see, now you're being deliberately provocative (and a little willfully ignorant) by trying to put words in my mouth.
Pot, kettle.
Quote:
the key word you missed in my post was
premeditated. i cannot accept that any member of the so-called "coalition of the willing" went into iraq with the express purpose of killing civillians.
So perhaps they are merely criminally neglegent?
Quote:
WMD or no, there was a clear objective at the outset to remove saddam hussein and install a democratic iraqi government because such a government would likely be "friendly" to the west.
The war and occupation were and are illegal. The objective is irrelevant (the fact the objctive was illegal merely increases the criminality of the venture).
Quote:
i really don't understand why people think the US want to maintain a military presence to control the oil, because it makes no economic sense.
No, you don't understand. So why DO they do it?
Quote:
the sheer cost of an prolonged occupation on that scale far outweighs any possible benefit from controlling the oil reserves.
Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. That's quite a prize.
Quote:
they would much rather have a friendly government running a stable country who (in gratitude) sells them the oil at a discount price.
I'm sure they would.
Quote:
the reason they haven't left yet is because the iraqi security force is in no state to break up a bar-room brawl let alone keep the peace.
A situation caused entirely by the illegal occupation.
Quote:
i think you will also find that a large portion of the "innocent iraqi deaths" are in fact due to the actions of non-iraqi insurgents who crossed the border in an attempt to use iraq as an arena to pursue their own anti-US agendas.
For sure. Those would be the insurgents who were wholly absent from Iraq before the illegal invasion? We (the coalition) bear full responsibilty for creating the pre-conditions of civil war in Iraq.
Quote:
the vast majority of civillian deaths attributable to military action should (and are) considered tragic - if sometimes avoidable - accidents rather than a deliberate effort to kill innocent people.
Phew. That makes it okay then.
--
Posted: 2005-07-26 10:58:57
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
