|
|
|
| More Tube blasts in London . . . |
|
Marcello
Member #1,860
January 2002
 |
What I'm confused about is why people are so quick to defend the police without looking at the issue critically. I'm not sure how many of you non-americans are familiar with the Patriot Act, but it's the same crap. Just because it's the law, doesn't necessarily make it right. Whether or not the police did the right thing, it is clear to me that something is very wrong here, and at the very least, it shouldn't be accepted as is. Marcello |
|
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
 |
I didn't read through all posts here, but I'll just say what I think. Is it ok for the police to kill an innocent man? Of course it isn't. Did someone bodge up badly here? Yes, absolutely. Is it ok for the police to shoot a terrorist suicide bomber in the head before he blows himself up? Yes, because that's about the only way to stop him. Shoot at his body and you risk detonating the payload. Shoot at his feet and you risk him detonating himself. Should the police try to arrest him first and only shoot him when he starts to run? Maybe, but they take the risk of having themselves blown up. Shooting a suicide bomber on-sight is the safest thing to do. Now then, this guy wasn't a suicide bomber, but an innocent bystander. He was suspected and when confronted didn't act as an innocent man would have. Someone decided to take no chances and shot him in the name of public safety. With hindsight, this was clearly a big mistake. Conversely, if the officer hadn't fired and the man had been a suicide bomber the death toll would have been very much higher and the officer would have been painfully neglicient. It's a game of Prisoner's Dilema: if everyone had cooperated, no one would have died (best outcome). However, the suspect did not cooperate and the police had to take a gamble: risk killing one innocent man or who knows how many civilians. They made a split second decision to kill the man. In a city that had just been shaken by four bombings and four attempted bombings, their reaction is understandable and maybe even appropriate. That doesn't make it less tragic and it doesn't make it right, but remember it's always easier to judge with hindsight. I don't know how I would live with myself knowing that I accidentally shot an innocent man - quite frankly I think I could not. |
|
Bob
Free Market Evangelist
September 2000
 |
Quote: It's a preventative tactic Nice. I have a better preventive tactic: Kill everyone. Now you're sure not to have any more suicide bombers. Quote: After the last tube explosion policemen in britain can shoot in case of suspect terrorism and since he lived there he also knew it. Link to the law? Was the entire population informed of this change of protocol? Was he read his rights? Quote: It's a game of Prisoner's Dilema: if everyone had cooperated, no one would have died (best outcome). However, the suspect did not cooperate and the police had to take a gamble: risk killing one innocent man or who knows how many civilians. They made a split second decision to kill the man. Yup. And now, the cops should be held responsible for it, just like every other single person in the country would be if they murdered someone (suspect or not). You can't play play Prisoner's Dilemma with no consequences to yourself. -- |
|
ReyBrujo
Moderator
January 2001
 |
Quote: Yup. And now, the cops should be held responsible for it, just like every other single person in the country would be if they murdered someone (suspect or not). You can't play play Prisoner's Dilemma with no consequences to yourself. Agree 100%. (Edited: By the way, I read Blair keeps saying the terrorist attacks in London were not caused because of the Iraq invasion. Plainly asked, is he stupid?) -- |
|
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
Quote: Yup. And now, the cops should be held responsible for it, just like every other single person in the country would be if they murdered someone (suspect or not). You can't play play Prisoner's Dilemma with no consequences to yourself. Well said. Quote: Plainly asked, is he stupid? No, I think he knows full well that they are related. He just doesn't want to say so in public. |
|
ReyBrujo
Moderator
January 2001
|
That is something politics have in common anywhere. They don't learn to admit their mistakes. -- |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
 |
Quote: The commissioner told Sky News TV that the only way to deal with someone who appears to be about to set off a suicide bomb is to "shoot to the head." He said, "There is no point in shooting at someone's chest because that is where the bomb is likely to be." Witnesses said the man was wearing a heavy padded coat when police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him five times. If you have a guy pinned to the ground, and cannot figure out a way to take off his coat to see if he has a bomb, then you are the most pathetic type of police man in the world. Most likely the bomb would have been strapped to himself and they could have removed the coat easily. But no, they weren't willing to even take a tiny chance of losing their lives in a noble fashion. The state killing innocent people without a trial to deter crime is the biggest type of terrorism in the world, something that Hussein himself is being put to trial for at this very time. Feel free to check back in six months after emotions have settled down and the "investigation" into the matter is completed. Right now, I think we can at least all agree that this is a tragedy that hopefully will not reoccur. |
|
|
|
