British shoot to kill policy

caldwelk

An innocent Brazilian electrician gets shot and killed because he ran from the police. The only evidence they had on him was that he was wearing a bulky coat at the time, wasn't white and was in the general area (block of flats that police were watching) that suspected terrorists may have been in. To make things worse, Blair defends this murder. Nothing new I suppose as he has been justifying the murder in Iraq since their invasion.

How can he justify the murder of an innocent man whose only crime was to be afraid of the British police. With a shoot to kill policy, who wouldn't be afraid of the British police.

British police are now operating a shoot to kill policy for suspected terrorists as well as trying to extend the period of detention without charge to 2 months.

When they did this in Northern Ireland, it acted as a recruiting tool for the IRA. Also many innocent civilians were killed and innocent people were jailed.

When will the British learn.

monkeyfudge

I believe they are calling it a 'shoot to kill to protect' policy... so that makes everything okay then.

Nuttzz

cant you just join in on the existing threads on this..:rolleyes:

stag39

next they will have all the police armed....britian the new america's...

county

so what,the british should have a [shot to tickle]policy/ :mad:

murphaph

I was reading all this....

caldwelk wrote:

An innocent Brazilian electrician gets shot and killed because he ran from the police. The only evidence they had on him was that he was wearing a bulky coat at the time, wasn't white and was in the general area (block of flats that police were watching) that suspected terrorists may have been in. To make things worse, Blair defends this murder. Nothing new I suppose as he has been justifying the murder in Iraq since their invasion.

How can he justify the murder of an innocent man whose only crime was to be afraid of the British police. With a shoot to kill policy, who wouldn't be afraid of the British police.

British police are now operating a shoot to kill policy for suspected terrorists as well as trying to extend the period of detention without charge to 2 months.

....wondering when you were going to say this.....

caldwelk wrote:

When they did this in Northern Ireland, it acted as a recruiting tool for the IRA. Also many innocent civilians were killed and innocent people were jailed.

When will the British learn.

....and then you did. There's another thread dealing in all this and there was no need to start another. Your post is full of holes, not least of which is the 'point' about the guy being afraid of a shoot to kill policy of which he was the first victim :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

caldwelk wrote:

An innocent Brazilian electrician gets shot and killed because he ran from the police.

Oh look, a snap judgement leading to an instant loss of credibility.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this tragedy, oversimplification for the purpose of making a politically motivated point isn't going to help.

Memnoch

for the guy that was murdered and for his family, I suspect it really is that simple.

Drapper

read my sig ........

vibe666

so, when someone who is being chased by the police telling him to stop or they'll shoot, and he not only keeps running, but runs onto a train in a train station that was only a day or so earlier used as the site for an attempted terrorist attack, what does he expect will happen?

he grew up in sao paulo, where police shootings are an every day occurence.

he was in london where even if he did not speak a single word of english (doubtful given he was there long enough for his visa to have expired) he cannot fail to know what had happened there over the last few weeks.

the police made a very big point of publicising the shoot to kill policy, and that it was for the greater good.

if he had been a bomber and they had done nothing and let him run onto a train and blown himself up, what do you think would have happened. better him than potentially dozens of people.

oscarBravo

Memnoch wrote:

for the guy that was murdered and for his family, I suspect it really is that simple.

Life is always simpler when you refuse to contemplate anyone's point of view but your own.

Cuauhtemoc

if he had been a bomber and they had done nothing and let him run onto a train and blown himself up, what do you think would have happened. better him than potentially dozens of people.

Why let him get to the tube in the first place ffs!
Why not just shoot him when he left the apartment block :rolleyes:
Thats where they followed him from was it not.

Memnoch

oscarBravo wrote:

Life is always simpler when you refuse to contemplate anyone's point of view but your own.

practise what you preach, especially in front of those you teach

An innocent man was murdered, this is a fact, if you think that his murder was justified that may be your opinion, but he was murdered, and that despite anyone's opinion remains a fact.

Gurgle

vibe666 wrote:

the police made a very big point of publicising the shoot to kill policy, and that it was for the greater good.

Shoot to kill if you know beyond a reasonable doubt that the person you are shooting at is a terrorist - Fine with me.

Thats not what happened here.

'Reasonable doubt' & 'Innocent until proven otherwise' - Out the window, to be replaced with 'for the greater good'.

This one killing represents a greater victory for Al-Quaeda than any of those killed in the terrorist attacks. Its taken a large chunk out of the values that make us what we are.

oscarBravo

Memnoch wrote:

An innocent man was murdered, this is a fact, if you think that his murder was justified that may be your opinion, but he was murdered, and that despite anyone's opinion remains a fact.

A man innocent of terrorism was shot and killed. That's a fact. Calling it murder is, at this point, an expression of opinion.

Cuauhtemoc

Murder is the unlawful killing of one person by another.
Killing an innocent man i would imagine is unlawful.

HelterSkelter

vibe666 wrote:

so, when someone who is being chased by the police telling him to stop or they'll shoot, and he not only keeps running, but runs onto a train in a train station that was only a day or so earlier used as the site for an attempted terrorist attack, what does he expect will happen?

His visa had expired, he was running from police because of that. I don't think he expected to get shot dead...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4714173.stm

"On Monday, officials said electrician Mr Menezes had come to the UK on a student visa, which allows people to work for a small number of hours, but it had expired.

BBC correspondents say this could explain why he ran from police.

However, Mr Menezes' family have denied his visa had run out. "

oscarBravo

Cuauhtemoc wrote:

Murder is the unlawful killing of one person by another.
Killing an innocent man i would imagine is unlawful.

So are you suggesting that no police officer should ever kill anyone under any circumstances ever, no matter what, without obtaining a conviction in court first?

Memnoch

oscarBravo wrote:

A man innocent of terrorism was shot and killed. That's a fact. Calling it murder is, at this point, an expression of opinion.

from www.dictionary.com

the definition of Murder - The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

So lets see, this human being was shot and killed by another human being.
It was pre-meditated. They shot him to the head, the intention was to kill.
It was unlawful, this person had done nothing to be killed, and there is no law in Britain that justifies the killing of an innocent human being.

So no it's not an opinion, it's a fact. He was MURDERED

You trying to pass it off as something else is however an expression of opinion.

tomMK1

oscarBravo wrote:

So are you suggesting that no police officer should ever kill anyone under any circumstances ever, no matter what, without obtaining a conviction in court first?

how many times are you going to ask that question? this whole fiasco IS the result of a shoot to kill policy, which never works.

Cops dont need to shoot anyone unless they themselves are in danger .. then its as good an idea to shoot the leg or other areas that really isnt the head.

Again, if this happened anywhere where a non legal army was concerned then there wouldnt be any debate .. it would be called murder.

tomMK1

oscarBravo wrote:

A man innocent of terrorism was shot and killed. That's a fact. Calling it murder is, at this point, an expression of opinion.

so tell me then .. going by your reasoning, if an innocent man was shot by the iRA as part of its war against britain then you wouldnt class that as murder either?

oh wait .. of course it would be because the IRA isnt run by the government. being assigned legally by a government gives you the right to kill doesnt it?

oscarBravo

Memnoch wrote:

It was unlawful, this person had done nothing to be killed, and there is no law in Britain that justifies the killing of an innocent human being.

So, are you saying that police should never kill anyone under any circumstances whatsoever, no matter what?

If he had opened his jacket to reveal a mass of wires and shouted "Allahu akhbar!", would it have been OK to kill him?

If he had done that, and been killed, but it subsequently turned out that he had only been pretending to have a bomb, would it then be murder again?

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

Cops dont need to shoot anyone unless they themselves are in danger

...but you want an independent judicial inquiry to establish beforehand whether the danger is real?

tomMK1 wrote:

Again, if this happened anywhere where a non legal army was concerned then there wouldnt be any debate .. it would be called murder.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "legal"?

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

so tell me then .. going by your reasoning, if an innocent man was shot by the iRA as part of its war against britain then you wouldnt class that as murder either?

Once again, it seems you're not following my reasoning very well.

tomMK1 wrote:

oh wait .. of course it would be because the IRA isnt run by the government. being assigned legally by a government gives you the right to kill doesnt it?

Under certain circumstances, yes. Are you suggesting that the police should be expressly forbidden from killing anyone under any circumstances ever, no matter what?

Cuauhtemoc

oscarBravo wrote:

So are you suggesting that no police officer should ever kill anyone under any circumstances ever, no matter what, without obtaining a conviction in court first?

I didn't suggest anything. All i said was they killed an innocent man. I don't imagine their remit or whatever allows them to kill inncent people so that would make it murder.
Anyway, this is just being pedantic. He's dead. Some situations do warrant a shoot to kill policy.
He should've been apprehended before the tube station.
But then..read my sig.
So procedures need to be changed somewhere. They should learn from this mistake, not make excuses for it.

tomMK1

oscarbrave - you are talking around the points here. Let me know once you are ready to seriously debate these things.

BuffyBot

for the guy that was murdered and for his family, I suspect it really is that simple.

As pointed out, it would be very unlikely for a devastated family to feel any other way. It doesn't nessecarily mean that it "really is that simple".

tomMK1

oscarBravo wrote:

Are you suggesting that the police should be expressly forbidden from killing anyone under any circumstances ever, no matter what?

are you going to use that line over and over and over again? Im sure i answered that either in this thread or another one

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

are you going to use that line over and over and over again? Im sure i answered that either in this thread or another one

I'm pretty sure you didn't, but feel free to link to where you did. I'm not using a line, I'm asking a question that goes to the heart of the point I'm making in this debate, and I'm not getting answers.

tomMK1

im pretty sure i did on the first page of this thread::

tomMK1 wrote:

Cops dont need to shoot anyone unless they themselves are in danger .. then its as good an idea to shoot the leg or other areas that really isnt the head.

that was in response to the last time you asked that question. isnt it a good enough answer to your 'the police should be expressly forbidden from killing anyone under any circumstances ever, no matter what?' question? the first reaction shouldnt be to kill. Judge Dread doesnt actually exist .

ambro25

Might I suggest that, had ID cards been (finally) rolled out in the UK, then this fiasco might have been averted....

...but then again possibly not, and in any case debating the finer points of pulling the trigger or not in a situation of (rightly- or wrongly-perceived) extreme danger ad nauseam is pretty pointless when done with 20/20 hindisght and not in full possession of the facts available to the police at the time (e.g. intel' that led police to suspect the guy, any kind of reports, surveilance photos, this, that the other).

Oh, yeah - edit while I'm at it:

Cops dont need to shoot anyone unless they themselves are in danger .. then its as good an idea to shoot the leg or other areas that really isnt the head.

Have you ever shot anything remotely more powerful than a pellet gun, to be qualified enough for making such a comment? Do you have any idea of the skill required to accomplish what you suggest? 'thought not. :rolleyes: