The Brazilian guy shot in London

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
This is precisely why gun control is a stupid myth. Got to love England where to defend yourself or your family in their own home is a crime.

But, oh well. They do have beautiful countryside and a pretty good financial market.


[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that people want to defend their homes in America, unless I am mistaken you have a constitutional right to bear arms for protection. Those kinds of traditions are tough to turn away from, change is often considered alarming by many people, especailly one so fundamental.

Gun control in the UK became a political point winner, basically the people who were members of gun clubs were a small minority and looked upon as oddballs by the general population, the government could act without fear after a couple of school masacres in the 80s and 90s, in fact it was almost demanded by media and the people.

Dunblane

Hungerford

Wolverhampton machete attack

All these were carried out by people obsessed with weapons, very strange characters. Thats why we tightened up, a) we don't use guns to defend our homes. b) nutters use them to shoot up little kids.

Regards Mack

[bobman0330]

OK, so you both agree that the police were within their rights to use reasonable force to detain this person, based on their knowledge. You both agree that shooting to kill is reasonable in this situation.

And yet you both continue to argue using silly insinuations like "wearing a padded jacket shouldn't be a capital crime." Why?

Hypothetical:
A gun-toting US cop wanders into a park to see a raving man standing over a prostrate woman waving a knife and preparing to stab her. He tells him to freeze, but gets no answer, so he shoots and kills him. Oops, turns out it was a Shakespeare in the Park production.

Or perhaps the slightly less fanciful situation that happens who-knows-how-many times, where a cop is detaining or arresting someone and the suspect reaches into a pocket and pulls out his shiny metal cigarette lighter and is immediately shot.

These things happen all the time. But we all know that it's much better for society as a whole to allow police (and citizens) to use lethal force when it appears that it is necessary to prevent imminent deadly violence against innocents. Sure, it would be great if police were omniscient and never made mistakes, but that's not reality.

In this case, the police had ample, ample, ample justification for believing this man was an imminent, major threat and that the only way to protect the police and the bystanders was to shoot him. You're not even bothering to disagree about any of this. You're just using this tragic mistake to advance your own political agendas.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
They wouldn't have a case in any country, assuming the police had some information on which to base their suspicions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be surprised the case a lawyer could argue in court. We really don't know all the facts that lead up to the decision to shoot this guy.

[ QUOTE ]
(Since they were surveilling his residence, I assume they did.)

[/ QUOTE ]

From another post there is some question as to whether or not this is the case.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, the police were within their rights to detain him by force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I think so but what's excessive and what isn't is open debate.

[ QUOTE ]
To argue that lethal force was unreasonable in the situation is ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again we really don't know all the facts and I'm fairly certain there are two sides to this story and we're only hearing one side of it. Would you expect anything else?

[ QUOTE ]
No case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again if this happened in the U.S. I think we'd see a lawsuit most of the time. That seems like a fair way to me. Let a judge decide if there is sufficient grounds to bring an action let people be deposed, let people testify, and let a jury decide whether or not this was excessive force.

Believe me, I generally give the police the benefit of the doubt and I do in this incident but there is doubt in my mind. Police screw up sometimes and we haven't even seen a thorough investigation by the police department that I know of. I know that would happen in the U.S. so I'd at least wait for that to occur before I stated there was no case. One thing that strikes me is that if this guy got on the subway before he was stopped, then isn't this a little too late?

[ACPlayer]

again and again;

[ QUOTE ]
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security. - Ben Franklin

[/ QUOTE ]

[tolbiny]

Correct me if i am wrong - but wasn't ben franklin a rich white guy who never had to march toward a group of men professionally trained to kil him?

[ QUOTE ]
again and again;

[ QUOTE ]
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security. - Ben Franklin

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if i am wrong - but wasn't ben franklin a rich white guy who never had to march toward a group of men professionally trained to kil him?

[ QUOTE ]
again and again;

[ QUOTE ]
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security. - Ben Franklin

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Every single one of the founding revolutionaries, especially the signers if the Declaration, risked their lives in a very real sense. They may not have faced it on the battlefield, but they put their lives on the line before they could even be sure there *would* be battlefields.

natedogg

[tolbiny]

True -
but there is a fdiferent level of danger that they faced. A less immediate one than what many people face on a daily basis- people that have to put up with abhorant [censored] just to survive.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]


In this case, the police had ample, ample, ample justification for believing this man was an imminent, major threat and that the only way to protect the police and the bystanders was to shoot him. You're not even bothering to disagree about any of this. You're just using this tragic mistake to advance your own political agendas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether the police had ample justification depends in large part on how exactly he was first challenged by them. He was challenged and killed by a gang of men in plainclothes carrying large guns - if they just started shouting and pulling their weapons it's not surprising he ran, especially given the fact he may not have amazing English. There have been claims that it isn't even true he vaulted the barrier and I don't entirely discount these given how many of the initial police claims turned out to be lies (he was known to them, he was definitely linked to the bombsm he came out of a house, as opposed to block of flats, under surveillance etc). It's also pretty silly that they gave him an escape route into the underground; if they had have surrounded him before challenging him (ideally with a uniformed officer doing the challenging) none of this would have happened (and they wouldn't have let a potential threat get into the tube system).

I agree that the police are in a difficult situation but some of the details of the case look like they made some pretty poor decisions in the run-up to the shooting. Firstly they should have tried to get some sort of idea in advance of who else lived in the block of appartments in order to eliminate them from suspicion when they emerged, not only to avoid the sort of thing that has happened but to avoid wasting their time following innocent people round London. It seems pretty amazing that they didn't do this. Secondly, if they really thought he was a real threat as a suicide bomber, why in the hell did they let him get on a bus, but them killhim for running into the underground? Finally maybe this is naive, but was it really necessary to put eight bullets in him when they had him pinned to the ground by three men? They keep saying the key to stopping a suicde bomber is to disable his hands, could three of them not even have attempted to pin his arms rather than executing someone who wasn't even known to them 30 minutes before? Especially given the fact that the guy wasn't carrying anything and suicide vests have never been used in the UK.

If evading arrest is to be a capital crime in London from now on, the police need to take much better prepatory measures than they seem to have done in this case.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
In this case, the police had ample, ample, ample justification for believing this man was an imminent, major threat and that the only way to protect the police and the bystanders was to shoot him. You're not even bothering to disagree about any of this. You're just using this tragic mistake to advance your own political agendas.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you are incorrect, I don't really have an agenda on this, I was just asking fellow Brits if they think its okay for the police to come out with the statement 'More innocent people will be shot' or not, this isn't America, generally the police here are not armed. You just moved the terms of the argument to suit the answer you liked to give, which seemed to be suggesting that we should never question actions like this, I disagree. I believe the paranoia surrounding terrorism at the moment to be much more dangerous than terrorism itself.

Mack

[BonJoviJones]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the paranoia surrounding terrorism at the moment to be much more dangerous than terrorism itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course, that would be the point of terrorism.