If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   British police maintain "shoot to kill" policy with minor changes. It is now officially not okay to shoot suspicious-looking Brazilians   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 83
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

3661 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Aug 2005 at 2:22 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-08-20 03:57:23 PM
Good grief what a complete cluster.
 
2005-08-20 04:04:44 PM
cops are allowed to kill anyone they want ,as long as they are on duty.without penalty.

the constitution and laws are just a suggestion.
 
2005-08-20 04:10:08 PM
QuietSound

MaxxLarge
:Since when do Brit cops carry guns, anyway?

They appear to have been military, not police.

If it had been the British police, they would still be beating the corpse trying to get it to confess it was really the terrorist they were looking for.
 
2005-08-20 04:26:16 PM
In the USA, had the same thing happened, first the local politicians would promptly dump all of the blame on the police department, then the lawyers would pile up at the door of the deceased's family and the news media would smear the cops as ill trained, racist, knuckle dragging morons and scream about the potential danger of hitting others.

Following that, there would be a lurid investigation with all involved officers placed on suspension with pay, probably a trial and, even if proven innocent, each would face civil lawsuits of millions and the police department itself would face more lawsuits.

By then, police officers all over would be hesitant to shoot and some nutcase would blow the krap out of about 100 people and AGAIN the cops would be blamed.

Hey. We have religious nuts running around who believe that getting killed in a Holy War sends them right to heaven with honors. Having been taught terrorist actions, generated first in France years ago, then honed in Vietnam by the Vietcong and pretty well practiced to perfection in Israel and Ireland, they know how to do the maximum damage with minimum expense and effort.

We're under attack. We know what the attackers look like. Very few are milk white with blond hair or jet black with curly hair. You should know the risks if you fit into the terrorist profile and NOT do something stupid like run in front of the cops -- ESPECIALLY a day or so after someone similar blew the krap out of a bunch of people.

In protecting the greater of the population, some innocents are bound to fall. In war, innocents often die. The terrorists don't care if the folks they kill happen to be Muslim like themselves or women and children. They don't care if they get killed themselves.

It used to be in the US that if a cop told you to stop when fleeing, you'd better do so or get shot. Then the lawyers got involved and now a criminal can run like heck knowing that, unless he's waving an obvious weapon about, the cops can't shoot him. Cops in the 30s and 40s carried machine guns (but then, after WW2, for a time, the maker pushed them on the public so even farmers owned them) until lawyers got involved again.

Then, for several decades, the cops were required to carry police 38 specials, while the crooks armed themselves with everything from .45s to Tech 9s and later, modified assault rifles. It took a lot of cops getting killed before upgrades were allowed.

For some of the London Bobbies to carry guns means their nation is seriously in danger.

What some of you fail to grasp -- and the news media tends to downplay or ignore -- is that terrorists are detonating bombs all over the globe.

So, what should we do? Have our cops stop and politely ask a suspect if he's carrying enough explosives to level a city block while making sure not to violate his rights and (heaven forbid) don't racially profile him?

Doing that will leave a whole lot of craters scattered about the land.

/brother of a cop.
 
2005-08-20 04:26:55 PM
Pluvius:

Dansker

I wonder when people are going to stop trying to say that race was a part of this incident.


I wasn't saying anything about racism, but mistaken identity.
 
2005-08-20 04:28:52 PM
Oh, on second reading, I guess I misunderstood your post, Pluvius.
Never mind.
 
2005-08-20 04:36:31 PM
Rik01:
You should know the risks if you fit into the terrorist profile and NOT do something stupid like run in front of the cops -- ESPECIALLY a day or so after someone similar blew the krap out of a bunch of people.

Take another look at that picture I posted up there.

What profile does he fit?
People with dark hair?

I regularly run in front of cops, so I guess you'd think I'm just asking for it.
And this was not the day after "someone similar" blew up people.
Read this before you embarass yourself further:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes (pops)
 
2005-08-20 04:38:57 PM
Rik01:

Putting seven in the chest from close range is more than a mere "violation of someone's rights".
Especially when that man didn't do anything.
 
rka
2005-08-20 04:53:58 PM

Given The State's (in this case Britain) monopoly on sanctioned violence, it is of the utmost importance that any mistakes by The State in the delivery of that violence be swiftly and severely punished. Mistakes by The State will happen, but they can *NEVER* be tolerated. In a society that has been disarmed by The State and who puts its safety in the hands of The State it is unacceptable for The State to go "Whoops! Our bad!".

So yes, that may mean that "bad people" get away with some things. Tough. I'd rather 10, 20, 100 people die every year at the hands of bad men (terrorists included) than have The State kill one innocent person. Because when The State starts making mistakes with sanctioned violence there is very little recourse. There is nothing they can't excuse in the name of "Security" once they cross that line.

 
2005-08-20 04:58:13 PM
Policemen don't need to be racist or even following racist policies to accidentally shoot people, guys.

Seven bullets to the face sounds intentional to me... but it reminds me of this:

King of swamp castle: "An accident? You put your sword right through his head!"

Lancelot: "I'm terribly sorry about that."
 
2005-08-20 05:05:26 PM
Rik01
You should know the risks if you fit into the terrorist profile and NOT do something stupid like run in front of the cops -- ESPECIALLY a day or so after someone similar blew the krap out of a bunch of people.


Fits the terrorist profile:




Someone similar:



I guess in Rik01's world they all look alike...
 
2005-08-20 05:07:37 PM
Rutir
i need one of those "I rode the metro and all i got was shot" t-shirts, surely somone makes one.

You could do it yourself.
CafePress

/Tempted to do it myself
//Figured you should get the first shot.
///No pun intended.
////Slashes for teh win
 
2005-08-20 06:28:30 PM
The Keystone Cops would have done a better job and they are funnier too!

 
2005-08-20 06:44:14 PM
good, now that the cops will do their murdering in a more egalitarian fashion, i guess that we will be seeing white brits have a clip run off into their craniums. is our tsa helping them along by sharing their profiling skills? good luck, you're headed in the right direction, the light is at the end of the tunnel.
 
2005-08-20 07:45:32 PM
People are accidently killed by police all the time. Why can't the media focus on the middle-class white guy who gets hit for once?

/reverse rant off
 
2005-08-20 07:52:34 PM
When this event first hit the news, all you heard was 'evidence' that he should have been shot. The 'I saw wires under a padded coat' statements.

Now Jean Charles de Menenez is known not to have been a terrorist, it's all the 'how could they have done this?' stuff.

That's the media - full on or full off.

He was living in a suspected terrorist house, he left it, refused to stop when challenged by Special Branch/Secret Service (MI5). They rightly had a call to make, and they wrongly took it.

Did he hear the call to stop? Did he understand what was said? We will never know.

Another innocent casualty in the war on terror. Not the first, and sadly not the last.

I work in London, and ride the tube. Glad I don't have calls like that to make, as since then I'd be up to about 394 by now.
 
2005-08-20 08:00:29 PM
MorallyDecaffeinated: He was living in a suspected terrorist house, he left it, refused to stop when challenged by Special Branch/Secret Service (MI5). They rightly had a call to make, and they wrongly took it.


No, he was living in an apartment in the same building as a suspected terrorist's apartment - presumably without realising it.

He did not "refuse to stop when challenged" because by the time he was "challenged", he was already sitting in a seat on the train. He stood up, was pushed down into his seat, and was shot in the head.
 
2005-08-20 08:15:56 PM
It astounds me how many of you are stupid enough to comment without knowing the most basic facts about the case. Dude was calmly sitting down on the train.
 
2005-08-20 08:39:30 PM
"On the day of the shooting Blair said de Menezes was under surveillance as part of a hunt for suspects from the July 21 attacks and had not responded to police challenges. The next day police admitted they had shot an innocent man and apologised"

I don't like it that an innocent man was shot any more than anyone else here, but the fact is that if he had cooperated and responded to police challenges, he would not have got shot. Even here in the U.S. where police aren't allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect, you just don't run from the police, period.
 
2005-08-20 08:47:28 PM
I don't like it that an innocent man was shot any more than anyone else here, but the fact is that if he had cooperated and responded to police challenges, he would not have got shot. Even here in the U.S. where police aren't allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect, you just don't run from the police, period.

How many times does it need to be repeated before you farking IDIOTS understand?

HE WASN'T RUNNING FROM THE POLICE! HE WAS SITTING CALMLY ON A FARKING TRAIN! THEY HELD HIM IN HIS SEAT AND SHOT HIM SEVEN TIMES IN THE HEAD! HE COULDN'T "COOPERATE" WITH THEM BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO "COOPERATE"!

The police farked this situation up from the start and decided to LIE to the press to cover their asses.

Farking thick-skulled apologists.
 
2005-08-20 08:48:05 PM
He did cooperate and respond you dumbass. He sat down on the train, they identified themselves, he stood up to walk to them, a guy grabbed him and pushed him back on his chair, then another guy shot him 7 times in the head. PAY ATTENTION SO AS TO AVOID LOOKING LIKE A FOOL.
 
2005-08-20 08:50:48 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Three surveillance officers codenamed Hotel 1, Hotel 3 and Hotel 9 followed Menezes onto the train. One of the officers identified the firearms officers on the platform and alerted them to the suspect's location. The firearms officers boarded the train and challenged the suspect. Menezes stood, at which point the surveillance officer, Hotel 3, grabbed him, pinning his arms against his torso, and pushed him back into the seat. The armed police officers, who had boarded the train, restrained the surveillance officer and shot Menezes. Two officers fired a total of eleven shots. Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at close range, and died at the scene.
 
2005-08-20 09:01:38 PM
TeaEarlGreyHot [TotalFark]
When will it become officially okay to shoot suspicious-looking eurotrash?

Let's hope not. I like my body without bullets wedged in it.
 
2005-08-20 09:14:07 PM
NarrMaster:

2005-08-20 04:38:57 PM NarrMaster

Rik01:

Putting seven in the chest from close range is more than a mere "violation of someone's rights".
Especially when that man didn't do anything.



Amen, since when is a cold-blooded outright MURDER right in the eyes of the law or humanity?

Those defective insane cops should be in jail for MURDER. The same sentence as any killer should get.
 
2005-08-20 09:25:18 PM
They should be, but they won't even get sentanced. When the police commit murder (shooting someone in the head 7 times)in this case), they usually get let off.
 
2005-08-20 09:30:53 PM
When will it be ok to shoot liberals???
 
2005-08-20 10:00:30 PM
When will the Bush daughters enlist???
 
2005-08-20 10:23:09 PM
Are we having fun yet???
 
2005-08-20 10:31:19 PM
I don't see anyone willing to defend what actualy happened. There might still be hope.
 
2005-08-20 11:45:00 PM
MWeather

Who would bother to defend what actually happened when it's so much easier to defend what didn't?
 
2005-08-20 11:49:02 PM
The UK has become a totalitarian police state.

Period.

/sad but true
//lived there for 20 years
///never moving back
////Blair's a coont. And a lying one at that.
 
2005-08-21 01:22:44 AM
I just found out that my brazilian ex-GF was cheating on me. I say shoot 'em all.
 
2005-08-21 12:21:00 PM
Let me ask an honest question. Those who repeatedly yell that he was wearing a thick coat, running from the police etc. - do you know even the most basic of the facts regarding this case? As many have pointed out, he did nothing of the sort, and was behaving as any normal civilian would, but got killed by the police - it was a murder.

Now why exactly do you keep saying he ran, had a thick coat, was living in a terrorist house etc? Do you have some sort of a deep bond with killers (some of the cops)? Are you related to one of the moronic cops who killed this innocent man? Are you one of the people who refuse to believe that they screwed up big time? Think for yourselves.
 
Displayed 33 of 83 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report