|
Well, I appreciate you don't want to have anything challenge your preconceptions, but it seems fairly unbiased to me. It also mentions the stuff about him running and the testimony of several eyewitnesses that doesn't seem to back up that notion. Sorry.
I think, when people are quoting the Guradian to me as the arbiter of truth, despite its well-known (and acknowledged) left-wing editorial slant, and that seems to escape comment, I think wikipedia is pretty free game.
Well... if I quoted the Guardian somewhere, please point it out. Just because someone else did, that does not mean I have to accept Wikipedia, does it? Anyone can edit it and it is common practice to do so for various agencies and such for PR purposes.
|
|
The Guardian thing is more a general comment - whenever I see a link on this thread, it seem to be to the Guardian website. I'm aware of the issues with wikipedia, but nevertheless the article shows that there are issues with the notion that this guy was hunted down half-way across south London and blown away. As for PR and agencies, that cuts two ways here. It was never conclusively proven that de Menezes vaulted the ticket barriers, for example. If he was running, he may have been running simply to catch the tube. And so on. Non-police eyewitness accounts say that the police sat down beside him before pinning him on the floor and shooting him, that he didn't struggle and looked surprised but relatively unconcerned.
You say you read the investigation. Does that mean you read the official reports, or you read some media reports? Because in the wake of the shooting they were shown to be often wildly inaccurate. And when? And your memory is pretty hazy, if you don't mind me saying, refering to "Operation Icarus" instead of Operation Kratos, for example. Not a biggie, but shows your recollection may not be as good as you think it is.
I never claimed he was hunted half-way across south London. Please. I should perhaps inform you that London is a big place, several kilometers, sorry, miles, across. =)
About the name of the protocol, I think I will have to get back to you. I don't think my memory is all that hazy. And as for what reports, well, all the ones I could get my hands on. But: There are a lot of "facts" you cite that were simply the jury verdicts in a pretty messed up trial (what they were allowed to say and so on). Pretty unstable ground, I would say.
|
|
I'm well aware of the size of London, I'm there right now. And I'm a south London boy.
I agree that there are unanswered questions, don't get me wrong. In something like this there will be. But it sort of avoids the bigger issue - were the police right to shoot dead a man they suspected of being a suicide bomber? Unfortunately, I've got to say yes - the potential loss of life would have been horrendous. Clearly there was an horrific cock-up in this particular incident. But my understanding (from the wikipedia article) is that although the name "Kratos" is now struck from the police handbook the policy in similar situations remains the same. Honestly, I support that.
As for what happened afterwards, the CPS made whatever decision it made not to prosecute the policemen involved. It's probably an unsatisfactory outcome but there may be reasons (such as operational issues relating to national security) which lead to it not being in the public interest. In the end, I don't think anyone seriously thinks the police did what they did without being convinced they were protecting the public. Do we want the police to hold back in a real incident, because they are concerned they might be held personally culpable if they make a mistake? I'd say that isn't in the public interest. Clearly, they need to follow procedure in those circumstances but that in itself is easier said than done in a very fluid situation. So it's not a simple case of black and white.
|
It was never conclusively proven that de Menezes vaulted the ticket barriers, for example.
Actually if I'm not mistaken it was proven he never vaulted the barriers they have cctv footage of him buying a ticket and for as far as the Cctv shows him calmly walking for a train.
Edit yep it's in the wikepedia article
The police has lied several times in this case. There have been many reports of policemen trying to influence witnesses such as "now think carefully about what you say". There was evidence that critical data was manipulated by the police, such as the entry into their log saying it was not likely a suicide bombing. During the trial, the jury was only allowed to claim "legal killing" or "open verdict", and so on. The problem with the system and the incident itself is far less problematic than what happened afterward. Still... I just don't get one thing:
If they thought he was packing explosives... and were trying to follow their directive to shoot him in the head...
... doesn't FIRST WRESTLING HIM TO THE GROUND before shooting him in the head kind of invalidate the entire bloody idea of the Kratos policy?
So, not only did they shoot the wrong man because one of their superiors wasn't clear on what the situation was, and apparently severely deficient in clear communication, they did NOT follow the protocol at all, and then the entire judicial machinery does all it can to free them from what should have been charges of severe incompetence at the very least.
I do not disagree with you that the police, under certain situations, should be allowed to shoot to kill. What I don't agree with is that triggerhappy secret-agent-wannabes playing war, directed by incompetent bosses without leadership or communication skills, should be trusted with following those guidelines.
Edit: Oh, right. Ikaros is an international watch list for criminals sought. I believe it was instituted at about the same time, which could have confused me. Kratos it is.
|
|
The police has lied several times in this case. There have been many reports of policemen trying to influence witnesses such as "now think carefully about what you say". There was evidence that critical data was manipulated by the police, such as the entry into their log saying it was not likely a suicide bombing. During the trial, the jury was only allowed to claim "legal killing" or "open verdict", and so on. The problem with the system and the incident itself is far less problematic than what happened afterward. Still... I just don't get one thing:
So the witnesses shouldn't think carefully? Plus I've not seen independent confirmation of that, to be honest. In a stressful situation people often have false memories. The entry in the log may well have been superceded by events and so not been material to what happened subsequently (though it was a pretty stupid thing to do, either way).
If they thought he was packing explosives... and were trying to follow their directive to shoot him in the head...
... doesn't FIRST WRESTLING HIM TO THE GROUND before shooting him in the head kind of invalidate the entire bloody idea of the Kratos policy?
So, not only did they shoot the wrong man because one of their superiors wasn't clear on what the situation was, and apparently severely deficient in clear communication, they did NOT follow the protocol at all, and then the entire judicial machinery does all it can to free them from what should have been charges of severe incompetence at the very least.
We don't know what the correct approach is in a crowded tube train, as we don't know the details of Kratos. We aren't trained for it. So I'm not really inclined to second guess operational stuff like that. It appears they dragged him out of the carriage, presumably to protect the passengers. You might be right, but the fact the CPS didn't prosecute suggests to me that the protocol was probably followed.
I do not disagree with you that the police, under certain situations, should be allowed to shoot to kill. What I don't agree with is that triggerhappy secret-agent-wannabes playing war, directed by incompetent bosses without leadership or communication skills, should be trusted with following those guidelines.
Well, like I said, we don't actually know those guidelines. And, to be fair, you weren't here at the time. We'd had the 7/7 bombings and some others had tried a repeat performance. There had already been significant loss of life - those fifty-odd people tend to get forgotten in all this - so referring to it as "playing war" I think misses the point - this was very serious and no one wanted a repeat.
Someone got shot to death BY THE POLICE just because the people involved could not communicate, and someone thought he might look like, uh, I dunno, a suicide bomber, calmly walking to the tube, using his card, in his denim jacket that covered dozens of pounds of explosives... Yeah. So they killed him without talking to him.
Yes, they were risk-aware. No, the police can't go murdering people anyway. It became a shitstorm because cases like this SHOULD become shitstorms. If it doesn't, here is free advice for you: emigrate.
You're making the claim that the welfare state caused these people to be criminally inclined to riot. I assume you actually have something to back this up, other than your own assertions that it's true.
I made the claim that poverty and unemployment was a factor. Here's an article that breaks some of that down.. 42% of the kids arrested were recipients of school lunches, which are only given to the 16% poorest families.
So it's your claim that free school lunches made these kids bad?
Ah, the Guardian again... No, I'm suggesting there are a number of factors, including the design of some aspects of the welfare state and other policies, which don't help. Which the article itself actually says. Clearly, deprivation is an issue - as I said above, having a stake in society involves having something to lose that you want to protect. Take that away, and you maybe aren't so bothered and rioting seems like more of an option.
But let's ask some questions the article doesn't. Why are these kids poor? Are they from predominately single-parent families, where there is no father? Policies for public housing have made it a quite viable option to become a single mother, although there is evidence that young men brought up in families without fathers tend, on average, to be more inclined the disorder. So is that wise? That's not a moralistic argument, it's a practical issue about social policy and the behaviours it encourages.
Another example. Labour governments abolished selective schooling (more or less) and brought in the comprehensive system. The result? Less social mobility that before under the "bad" system that supposedly left the ones who failed the 11+ "on the scrapheap". So if you are born poor now, you are less likely to actually lift yourself out through educational attainment that you were fifty years ago, and this in our supposedly more meritocratic society. Add in teaching unions hostile to any form of accountability for their members, and you have an...
If you want to discuss the merits of specific programs, that's one thing. But your making broad and sweeping generalizations about the welfare state.
Riots are a bad thing. They are never the moral recourse to a situation. Even though opportunistic behavior happens during a riot, that opportunistic behavior is not the cause of the riot, nor the general cause for participation in it.
So far all your doing is making declarations and not showing your work.
Here in America the conservatives are trying to make us fear those who are smart and actually do research and try to do scientific work to explain things.
|
|
Someone got shot to death BY THE POLICE just because the people involved could not communicate, and someone thought he might look like, uh, I dunno, a suicide bomber, calmly walking to the tube, using his card, in his denim jacket that covered dozens of pounds of explosives... Yeah. So they killed him without talking to him.
Yes, they were risk-aware. No, the police can't go murdering people anyway. It became a s@+@storm because cases like this SHOULD become s&++storms. If it doesn't, here is free advice for you: emigrate.
No, they didn't talk to him. "Excuse me, young man, are you a suicide bomber?" The experience with suicide bombers tends to be, once discovered, they blow themselves up on ths spot. That's why Operation Kratos was in place. It is obviously the case that mistakes were made - duh! - but then mistakes do get made. I'd be amazed if mistakes didn't get made. As with the other times we've mentioned above where the police have accidentally killed someone, it is to be regretted. But given that if they didn't do this stuff to protect us we'd be screaming, and given that you are basically saying that unless a policeman is perfect at all times otherwise he is a murderer, I'm not sure what to say to you. It is very easy to wise after the event when you don't actually have the resposibility to make these life-and-death decisions in a very narrow time frame and without the benefit of all the information. It shows naivety on your part, frankly, that you think that isn't hard and prone to error.
|
|
You're making the claim that the welfare state caused these people to be criminally inclined to riot. I assume you actually have something to back this up, other than your own assertions that it's true.
I made the claim that poverty and unemployment was a factor. Here's an article that breaks some of that down.. 42% of the kids arrested were recipients of school lunches, which are only given to the 16% poorest families.
So it's your claim that free school lunches made these kids bad?
Ah, the Guardian again... No, I'm suggesting there are a number of factors, including the design of some aspects of the welfare state and other policies, which don't help. Which the article itself actually says. Clearly, deprivation is an issue - as I said above, having a stake in society involves having something to lose that you want to protect. Take that away, and you maybe aren't so bothered and rioting seems like more of an option.
But let's ask some questions the article doesn't. Why are these kids poor? Are they from predominately single-parent families, where there is no father? Policies for public housing have made it a quite viable option to become a single mother, although there is evidence that young men brought up in families without fathers tend, on average, to be more inclined the disorder. So is that wise? That's not a moralistic argument, it's a practical issue about social policy and the behaviours it encourages.
Another example. Labour governments abolished selective schooling (more or less) and brought in the comprehensive system. The result? Less social mobility that before under the "bad" system that supposedly left the ones who failed the 11+ "on the scrapheap". So if you are born poor now, you are less likely to actually lift yourself out through educational attainment that you were fifty years ago, and this in our supposedly more meritocratic society. Add in teaching unions hostile to any form of
...
If you want to discuss the merits of specific programs, that's one thing. But your making broad and sweeping generalizations about the welfare state.
Riots are a bad thing. They are never the moral recourse to a situation. Even though opportunistic behavior happens during a riot, that opportunistic behavior is not the cause of the riot, nor the general cause for participation in it.
So far all your doing is making declarations and not showing your work.
Here in America the conservatives are trying to make us fear those who are smart and actually do research and try to do scientific work to explain things.
I assume "smart" means "agrees with Irontruth". There are plenty of smart people around who have caused lots of damage through bungled policies. It was smart people who introduced comprehensive education, for example.
I've given actually some specifics about council housing policy and education. I didn't make it up, even if you can dispute it. I'm not sure how specific you want. Given all you gave me was that the riots were an anguished howl (on the basis of your opinion and not much else) and a Guardian article which itself doesn't draw the conclusion you drew from it, I think I'm holding up my end.
|
|
Yes, if they are considered to represent an immediate danger to the public. And, just to be clear: it's UK police protocol to do so. And probably in the US too.
That said, as far as I can tell Kratos changes a couple of things on the ordinary procedure. Normally police will challenge before they fire, with Kratos that doesn't seem to be the case. And they aim for head and lower limbs instead of torso to minimise the chance of accidentally setting off explosives. But since armed police will shoot someone they think is an immediate danger to the public with a gun, I don't really see why this is such a massive step-change. The basic principles are the same with changes to cover off the specific dangers of a suicide bomber. I'm not even sure police are required to challenge under normal circumstances.
So...you have no problem with this, Aubrey? It's an accident, accidents happen, oh well; or the cops really messed up and should face charges? I'm from the US, so this story didn't get told much over here. I'm reading the wiki now, though.
Sweden has a strong welfare state... well. The truth is swedes pay around 70% of their income in taxes.
No, we don't. The right-wing propaganda machine of Sweden tends to lie about the facts by including non-taxes in the calculations, though (like taking employers payroll fees and calling them employees taxes, as Metro did recently and just ignored hundreds of emails from people explaining to them that this is incorrect). I think the average is around 35% or so in income tax, and then there's a "sales tax" at between 0 and 12 percent for most common things like food and public transportation (12%) and medicine and stuff (0%). There are a few more things but those two are the big ones that most people pay.
But it's gotten worse on the welfare state, that's for sure. Public services has gotten shittier to pay for lowering of companies taxes, and reforms to decrease wages (such as the "work tax deduction" that aims to reduce wages) and the large unions have moved towards corporativism.
EDIT: On police committing horrible acts it's interesting to note that if they DO get convicted/fired it's easy to call them of as "just a bad egg" but if they DON'T it's easy to say "well, they weren't convicted so they apparently did right!". That way, you can never say there's a structural issue!
Police brutality is also becoming a far more disturbing issue in Sweden, btw. As in, police sit around threatening to castrate people using racial slurs and keeping their jobs, people "accidentaly" getting broken arms, police beating up union strikers for the first time since 1921, police shielding nazis while the nazis are attacking protesters and so on.
|
|
So...you have no problem with this, Aubrey? It's an accident, accidents happen, oh well; or the cops really messed up and should face charges? I'm from the US, so this story didn't get told much over here. I'm reading the wiki now, though.
Possibly pertinent. I haven't read it but if you have time these are the use of firearms guidelines for the UK police.
Does it bother me? Yes, of course it does. But the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service), which is independent of the police, decides who is charged and with what. Given the nature of this case, there would have been masive scrutiny, you can guarantee that. Can I second-guess the CPS? No, I can't. Do I like the idea of a hapless young man accidentally killed due to mistaken identity? No, I don't. But do I like the idea of a police force than cannot execute its remit to protect the public from suicide bombers? No, and I like that even less. It's a question of priorities.
so..it's okay?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the words of the late Whitney Houston, it's not good but it's ok. Neither outcome is really desirable but if we live in a world where suicide bombers want to blow us up on the tube, I'll take Kratos. With its potential for error.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree, Aubrey.
|
|
In the words of the late Whitney Houston, it's not good but it's ok. Neither outcome is really desirable but if we live in a world where suicide bombers want to blow us up on the tube, I'll take Kratos. With its potential for error.I'm going to have to respectfully disagree, Aubrey.
And I respect that. In the end, it comes down to balancing the rights of the individuals involved, which are competing. Not everyone will see it the same way.
|
|
Yes, if they are considered to represent an immediate danger to the public. And, just to be clear: it's UK police protocol to do so. And probably in the US too.
That said, as far as I can tell Kratos changes a couple of things on the ordinary procedure. Normally police will challenge before they fire, with Kratos that doesn't seem to be the case. And they aim for head and lower limbs instead of torso to minimise the chance of accidentally setting off explosives. But since armed police will shoot someone they think is an immediate danger to the public with a gun, I don't really see why this is such a massive step-change. The basic principles are the same with changes to cover off the specific dangers of a suicide bomber. I'm not even sure police are required to challenge under normal circumstances.
But unlike the case with firearms, there's no need to actually see the firearm or indeed any direct evidence that he's a danger. It's one thing to shoot someone who's waving around an AK-47, another to shoot someone who's been identified as a potential suicide bomber without any actual immediate evidence. If the cop sees the suicide vest or belt or some other direct situation, that's a different story.
Of course, even the firearms thing gets abused. There are plenty of cases of people getting shot because the cop "thought he was reaching for a gun".
Well, on the reaching for a gun thing, remember that UK police are not routinely armed. Of course, we have a similar thing with the Duggan case. But the scope for this happening in the UK is much less than in the US.
On the other, my response is pretty much the one I just gave to FreeholdDM. The problem with a suicide bomber is that he won't be parading round in an explosives vest, it will be concealed. It doesn't make him any less deadly. By the time you get definitive proof it'll probably bee too late. How much proof would you need before he blew himself up? What about the rights of the potential victims? It's not like this happens every day - that would change the blance if it was clear that the police were consistently rubbish at identifying suicide bombers. This is a single case and, like all single cases, it makes bad policy to base your response on that.
|
|
Like I said, single examples make bad policy. Kratos is reportedly similar to protocols used by the Israelis and Sri Lankans, who've had experience with this (to say the least). Now, I can agree that in lots of ways security policy for those places leaves a lot to be desired, and is a negative factor in considering the adoption of Kratos in the UK. Notwithstanding, I'm not sure what the alternative might be without potentially allowing more successful suicide attacks. I mean, that's an option if you wish to callibrate the scale of competing rights somewhere else, but also you probably need to be comfortable with the potential for more innocent bystanders getting killed by terrorists. Since suicide attacks of this sort are not frequent events in the UK (though there was another at Edinburgh airport a few years ago, albeit it was more like a ramraid) it's probably hard to judge what is appropriate here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the policy is that it gives policemen a carte blanche about shooting people. Literally anyone could be targeted.
"So, you shot dead a 28-year old mother who was out walking with her two kids, Johnny Cop? Seriously?"
"It was dark."
"It was noon in july, on a day without cloud cover."
"She acted suspiciously. She did not stop when I told her to."
"According to thirty-eight witnesses, you did not tell her to stop."
"She tried to run."
"The same witnesses say that you jumped out from a bush in front of her, first screaming, and I quote, 'I told you I wouldn't let this stand you b@&$~', then shooting her dead with your gun before she took one step."
"I wanted to incapacitate her so she would not be a threat."
"That was why you shot her with a weapon you modified yourself to allow full autofire, killing her with seventy-three bullets?"
"Ehmmm... She acted suspiciously."
"Again, the witnesses say she was out walking her kids. They say she was telling them about Timon and Pumbaa in Egypt. They never got to the part with the pyramids, though."
"I had gotten a tip that she was going to be part of a conspiracy to blow up... uh... Big Ben."
"The tip you refer to was anonymously sent from your work terminal, the day AFTER you shot her. You also spelled her name wrong. In fact, there is another interesting piece of information that has come to light: You owed her over two hundred thousand pounds. Did that have anything to do with you shooting her, Johnny Cop?"
"You see, she was wearing a big winter coat..."
"She was wearing a blouse and a skirt. We have the body and, as we said, thirty-eight witnesses."
"Well, anyway, I shot her because I thought she was a suicide bomber."
"Ah, according to what was previously called the Kratos protocol? Well then, then it's okay. Jolly good work, killing a suspected terrorist like that. I see it's your fourth this year. We can only commend your diligence. And we'll handle the press. We'll say that it's always regrettable that some innocents are killed in the fight against terrorism, yadda yadda, and the rights of the individual have to be balanced away... have to be balanced, sorry. We can probably squeeze in a medal for you later this week."
The problem with the policy is that it gives policemen a carte blanche about shooting people. Literally anyone could be targeted.
"So, you shot dead a 28-year old mother who was out walking with her two kids, Johnny Cop? Seriously?"
"It was dark."
"It was noon in july, on a day without cloud cover."
"She acted suspiciously. She did not stop when I told her to."
"According to thirty-eight witnesses, you did not tell her to stop."
"She tried to run."
"The same witnesses say that you jumped out from a bush in front of her, first screaming, and I quote, 'I told you I wouldn't let this stand you b~&%*', then shooting her dead with your gun before she took one step."
"Ehmmm... She acted suspiciously."
"Again, the witnesses say she was out walking her kids. They say she was telling them about Timon and Pumbaa in Egypt. They never got to the part with the pyramids, though."
"I had gotten a tip that she was going to be part of a conspiracy to blow up... uh... Big Ben."
"The tip you refer to was anonymously sent from your work terminal, the day AFTER you shot her. You also spelled her name wrong. In fact, there is another interesting piece of information that has come to light: You owed her over two hundred thousand pounds. Did that have anything to do with you shooting her, Johnny Cop?"
"You see, she was wearing a big winter coat..."
"She was wearing a blouse and a skirt. We have the body and, as we said, thirty-eight witnesses."
"Well, anyway, I shot her because I thought she was a suicide bomber."
"Ah, according to what was previously called the Kratos protocol? Well then, then it's okay. Jolly good work, killing a suspected terrorist like that. I see it's your fourth this year. We can only commend your diligence. And we'll handle the press. We'll say that it's always regrettable that some innocents are killed in the fight against terrorism, yadda yadda, and the rights of the individual have to be balanced away... have to be balanced, sorry. We can probably squeeze in a medal for you later this week."
I wouldn't be surprised, considering that we seem to be heading towards a cyberpunk dystopia* with each passing day.
* = Only difference is that we don't get any cool cyberpunk technology, instead just getting the civilians under the foot of corporations and corrupt security forces.
|
|
The problem with the policy is that it gives policemen a carte blanche about shooting people. Literally anyone could be targeted.
This is how Kratos supposedly works. So it's not exactly carte blanche. Sorry, wikipedia again.
Oh, right, I forgot this part:
"The former Kratos policy, you mean?"
"Yes."
"So, you shot at her head only?"
"No, I just sprayed her."
"Yes, the crime scene was... messy. You apparently killed four other witnesses and one of her kids, too. They are not sure if one piece they have found is her right leg or part of someone's skull."
"In extreme situations, the policy recommends that covert police officers fire on suspected suicide attackers without warning, aiming multiple shots at the brain stem to minimise the risk of detonation of a bomb."
Is this what you are talking about? Yeah, I am so much calmer.
"But how could you think she was a suicide bomber?"
"She was surrounded by no less than thirty-eight, plus four, plus two kids, that's forty-four people! Can you imagine what would have happened if she had detonated her explosives? It was an extreme situation!"
It's less satire and more of a "what if", since humans have been doing absurdly horrible things throughout history.
So, basically, there are no requirements at all for a policeman to claim that someone is a suicide bomber? All that is required is that he claims to think the victim was one? Brilliant. And you think the stuff I wrote above was clumsy satire? Seems the joke is on you after all.
|
|
That's UK law. And applies to all armed confrontations involving the police. It's worth noting that there is a separate test in that the shooter's opinion isn't the one that matters, though, it's a separate assessment of whether the jury considers it reasonable. I'd also be curious as to the legal framework in your country before you start condemning mine.
Some stats for the UK. Some details (not totted up, but clearly a lot more even adjusting for population size) for the US. I'd be interested in the stats for Sweden, if you can get them.
I can't find a neat curve, but the total from 1995-2011 seems to be 14 or 15. This would mean that we swedes have a higher number of people shot dead by police per capita than the UK. 7 of these were mentally ill.
|
|
That's probably to be expected given that Swedish police are routinely armed. The point I'm making is that broadly speaking the per-capita death rate by police shooting is lower in the UK. While we can get excited about Kratos the overall policy leads to a lower death rate. And whatever might be going on in the UK rather pales in comparison with the US, albeit a country where the citizenry are also routinely armed.
Swedes actually has more firearms per capita than americans. However, most of it is hunting rifles.
What is disastrous is the fact that if someone uses the Kratos policy, they don't actually have to know anything about the person beyond "that guy might be a suicide bomber". That in itself, without anything to back their hunch up, is enough to let the policeman in question kill the guy. It is not a problem about the number of deaths - the problem is one of innocent until proven guilty and rule of law. What it harms is the fact that people can act in such a way as not to be shot dead by police. As many muslims called their politicians to ask after the de Menezes shooting: What if I was carrying a backpack? Could a police seeing me mean that I get shot dead?
So long as Kratos is in effect, the sad answer is YES.
I suspect that the UK owes far more than it realizes to Jean de Menezes. Thanks to the way this case blew up in the police's face, police will think both once and twice before murdering innocents again just because "he might be a suicide bomber", which is probably a good reason the shootings have not increased since 2005.
To be perfectly honest: There can't be laws for every eventuality. There never will be a good, lawful solution for this problem. If I had to choose a system, I would say that if someone thinks another is a suicide bomber, it's up to them to kill that person. If he wasn't a suicide bomber, then let the shooter go to jail. There are risks worth taking, and the police have always been about protecting the public. As soon as you try to legalize doing this, however, you WILL get Johnny Cop stories. Unless, of course, you think humanity has changed through massive evolution these last few decades. I am not that naive.
|
|
What is disastrous is the fact that if someone uses the Kratos policy, they don't actually have to know anything about the person beyond "that guy might be a suicide bomber". That in itself, without anything to back their hunch up, is enough to let the policeman in question kill the guy. It is not a problem about the number of deaths - the problem is one of innocent until proven guilty and rule of law. What it harms is the fact that people can act in such a way as not to be shot dead by police. As many muslims called their politicians to ask after the de Menezes shooting: What if I was carrying a backpack? Could a police seeing me mean that I get shot dead?
So long as Kratos is in effect, the sad answer is YES.
I suspect that the UK owes far more than it realizes to Jean de Menezes. Thanks to the way this case blew up in the police's face, police will think both once and twice before murdering innocents again just because "he might be a suicide bomber", which is probably a good reason the shootings have not increased since 2005.
To be perfectly honest: There can't be laws for every eventuality. There never will be a good, lawful solution for this problem. If I had to choose a system, I would say that if someone thinks another is a suicide bomber, it's up to them to kill that person. If he wasn't a suicide bomber, then let the shooter go to jail. There are risks worth taking, and the police have always been about protecting the public. As soon as you try to legalize doing this, however, you WILL get Johnny Cop stories. Unless, of course, you think humanity has changed through massive evolution these last few decades. I am not that naive.
Well, that's basically the same point as made by FreeholdDM and my response is the same. I doubt the "de Menezes" effect you cite actually exists - crime is generally falling, according to statistics, and that may well be a more significant factor.
Crime has been falling slowly all over the West since 1995. Allow me to doubt that is the reason.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing wrong with protesting. Nothing wrong with revolution. But rioting for the sake of destruction is kind of counter-productive. I have no clue what really went down in GB, but I almost wonder if there weren't some "Agent Provocateur" shenanigans going on like in Seattle and Toronto during the WTO/G-20 stuff.
I can't bring myself to trust any governments these days.
[Yawns]
Hasn't there been another riot in Greece or Portugal yet?
|
|
Nothing wrong with protesting. Nothing wrong with revolution. But rioting for the sake of destruction is kind of counter-productive. I have no clue what really went down in GB, but I almost wonder if there weren't some "Agent Provocateur" shenanigans going on like in Seattle and Toronto during the WTO/G-20 stuff.
I can't bring myself to trust any governments these days.
I don't think there's much evidence of agent-provocateurs - certainly there were no media reports of such. I think it's fair to say it started fairly spontaneously, but initially weak policing let it spread in a much bigger way than maybe it should have. Plus they had access to modern mobile telecoms which allowed them to coordinate.
And I'm not dismissing it. I just think the (for want of a better term) left-wing diagnoses of what happened tend to leave out how at least some of the problem is a result of foolish left-wing policies in days of yore. I reckon there's plenty that can be done about it, I just get the impression that there is disagreement over what.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Toronto, the police fell back blocks and "ignored" people setting their cars on fire (conveniently left unprotected and in weird places). Then they went whole hog going after people who were actually being peaceful and protesting the right way, cracking many skulls as they did so.
I can't assume the police response wasn't planned that way in GB, because, frankly, I can't trust any of our governments not to create reasons to pass stricter laws and take away more personal liberty. That's how we do it Stateside, and apparently in Canada, why would GB be any different?
Are Australia and New Zealand the only ex-Brit colonies not totally screwed up?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why Iceland rocks and the rest of the world sucks
The metrics by which they assert that Iceland is growing faster than most of the rest of the world are misleading. That said, I agree that Iceland looks pretty awesome right about now. It doesn't hurt that, like, a third of their population seems to be in internationally popular but off-kilter pop groups.
"Growing faster" usually means "didn't exist before and now there is something tiny there, which in percents becomes pretty damn impressive". A pretty good sum-up of the icelandic economy right now. Still, the IMMI, Iceland Modern Media Initiative is a Good Thing (tm).