I know the London police screwed up by shooting that dude last week, and that was tragic. But still mega props to the British authorities for moving quickly and efficiently on this.
Does Scotland Yard offer seminars for other nations?
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Take care,
PK
Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
Indeed. That was the point I was trying to make subtly, without fanning flames.matthewk wrote:Doesn't it seem like they've accomplished more in the 3 weeks since their attack than we did in 3 months after? While we sit and argue about how arabs should not be singled out in searches so we don;'t violate anyones rights, the brits are taking care of business.
I agree with Sudz. When the police say stop, you f***in stop. Especially if you're carrying a backpack shortly after a suicide bombing. Maybe the guy didn't understand, maybe he was guilty of something. I don't see how you can't shoot in that situation. It's tragic if he was innocent, but it's not like they shot first and then said stop.Jayhawker wrote:The U.S. arrests people all the time. They just hide their identities and refuse to charge them with a crime or see an attorney. The material witness law allows for it.
Britain is having to be quite a bit more flamboyant, since news leaked that they stopped the U.S. from arresting one of the bombing suspects some time before the bombings in London.
So now we have an innocent man being shot to death, and lots of public arrests, and they get credit? Sounds more like they are just trying make their citizens feel safe. Well, unless you happen to be a Muslim citizen. Then you better be freaking terrified.
Dude, he had a BACKPACK.spooky157 wrote:Police don't have the right to open fire 8 times on an unarmed man. I don't care how many times they say "stop". I know these are crazy times but are we going to throw all civil rights out the window because of this paranoia?
Sure they have the right. You say he was unarmed. Right after bombings where the murderers were known to be a) Arab and b) carrying bombs in backpacks, this arab guy with a backpack takes off when police tell him to stop. It's his own fault. I'd rather see this than have the guy get away and 2 hours later find out he was carrying a bomb and blew peopoe up.spooky157 wrote:Police don't have the right to open fire 8 times on an unarmed man. I don't care how many times they say "stop". I know these are crazy times but are we going to throw all civil rights out the window because of this paranoia?
Wasn't he Brazilian? Even if he wasn't Brazilian by this rationale any guy with skin a shade darker than your average Brit is a target.matthewk wrote:Sure they have the right. You say he was unarmed. Right after bombings where the murderers were known to be a) Arab b) carrying bombs in backpacks, this arab guy with a backpack takes off when police tell him to stop.
I'd rather see kittens get mauled than have a guy get away and 2 hours later find out he was carrying a bomb blowing people up on a train. It doesn't mean that it's right to maul kittens. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Cops don't have to shoot every olive skinned guy who runs from them. They don't have the right to do so in the States and I'm pretty sure they don't have that right in the UKmatthewk wrote:It's his own fault. I'd rather see this than have the guy get away and 2 hours later find out he was carrying a bomb and blew peopoe up.
What about the civil rights of the law abiding citizens?
It's common sense for people like you and I because we're law-abiding citizens but this man is an illegal alien. He's obviously not a law-abiding citizen but I recently watched "Dirty Pretty Things", which is a film about illegal immigrants living in the UK, and I do have a lot of sympathy for what they have to go through.Brando70 wrote:I am a firm believer in civil rights -- I certainly don't condone some of the extra-legal steps we're taking to keep people locked up for years because they might be terrorists.
But civil rights doesn't excuse you from common sense. I assume that the police in question, undercover or not, identified themselves as police and told this man to stop. He did not and, unfortunately, he fit the profile of a group of terrorists who had struck weeks before. As for the shots to the head, the policy is shoot-to-kill, to try and incapcitate a potential bomber before they can detonate their bombs.
I have a lot of sympathy for illegal immigrants of all sorts. I know immigrants in the UK face a lot of the challenges that our own face, and that the vast majority of them are in countries like the US and UK to better their lives.spooky157 wrote:It's common sense for people like you and I because we're law-abiding citizens but this man is an illegal alien. He's obviously not a law-abiding citizen but I recently watched "Dirty Pretty Things", which is a film about illegal immigrants living in the UK, and I do have a lot of sympathy for what they have to go through.Brando70 wrote:I am a firm believer in civil rights -- I certainly don't condone some of the extra-legal steps we're taking to keep people locked up for years because they might be terrorists.
But civil rights doesn't excuse you from common sense. I assume that the police in question, undercover or not, identified themselves as police and told this man to stop. He did not and, unfortunately, he fit the profile of a group of terrorists who had struck weeks before. As for the shots to the head, the policy is shoot-to-kill, to try and incapcitate a potential bomber before they can detonate their bombs.
As for fitting the profile, the only 2 ways he fit the profile were his skin tone and the backpack. And I still believe they would not have shot him 8 times if he was a white man with a backpack.
I didn't know he was Brazilian. Still, he fit the description of a bomber based on 3 things: Skin color, backpack, running from the cops into a train station. It is unfortunate that skin color is used in part to target a suspect, but I'd rather have the police lookijng for someone that fits the profile rather than wasting time strip searching 80 year old grandmas.spooky157 wrote:Wasn't he Brazilian? Even if he wasn't Brazilian by this rationale any guy with skin a shade darker than your average Brit is a target.
How does this guy equal a kitten getting mauled? At that moment in time I think it had to be either a) kill the guy and possibly prevent many more from being hurt, or b) chase him and possibly let the guy detonate a bomb. If he had not been carrying a backapck and running into a train station, maybe they would not have shot him. Given the recent events I support what they did. It's unfortunate that he was not a terrorist, but like Brando has stated, it's his own fault for running.spooky157 wrote: I'd rather see kittens get mauled than have a guy get away and 2 hours later find out he was carrying a bomb blowing people up on a train. It doesn't mean that it's right to maul kittens. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Cops don't have to shoot every olive skinned guy who runs from them. They don't have the right to do so in the States and I'm pretty sure they don't have that right in the UK
Oh please. If a group of white teenagers had commited the first bombings, then yes, they'd have shot a white teen with a backpack running from them. When's the last time a group of white teens carried out a bombing attack? It's not like they are shooting at every person who has olive skin.spooky157 wrote: What about the civil rights of olive skinned people? Do you think they would've shot him 8 times if he was a white teenager? I've seen a few of them running from cops.