More Terror in London 7/21, Low Casualties

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 55
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    It is certainly uderstandable, as the police must be under enormous pressure, but it also sets a dangerous precedence.



    Agree.



    The press briefing surely didn´t give many answers.



    And one of the other incidences today: Clear as mud
  • Reply 22 of 55
    fieldorfieldor Posts: 213member
    I am watching news right now and it seems it could have been much worse. There was something wrong with the detonation or it could be a message to the police of what could have happened.



    Well I hope, the bloodshed will end.



    Edit: The bombs yesterday I mean.
  • Reply 23 of 55
    bronxitebronxite Posts: 104member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    It is certainly uderstandable, as the police must be under enormous pressure, but it also sets a dangerous precedence.



    fleeing, trying to escape, resisting arrest and reports of him wearing a belt with wires coming from it would suggest pretty good precedence for the police action
  • Reply 24 of 55
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Agree.



    The press briefing surely didn´t give many answers.



    And one of the other incidences today: Clear as mud




    I am a bit torn about the whole situation. The police most surely have good reasons to be so secretive right now but on the other hand the books have to be opened pretty soon on what is going on. We have to know what is happening to be able to trust the police.



    BTW I am not in London but my city is next on the list so the situation will most likely be similar within a year here...
  • Reply 25 of 55
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bronxite

    fleeing, trying to escape, resisting arrest and reports of him wearing a belt with wires coming from it would suggest pretty good precedence for the police action



    Of all that fleeing was the only thing I have heard or read he did.
  • Reply 26 of 55
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    This is so far the only thing I have heard about the person:



    Quote:

    1854: Police say the man shot at Stockwell had been followed by surveillance officers because he had emerged from a house linked to the investigation into Thursday's blasts.



    They say the man is still subject to formal identification.



    BBC
  • Reply 27 of 55
    bronxitebronxite Posts: 104member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Of all that fleeing was the only thing I have heard or read he did.



    from the link directly above



    Quote:

    He was being under police observation because he had emerged from a house that was being watched following Thursday's attacks, a spokesman said.



    The man was followed by surveillance officers to Stockwell station, where his clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions, he added.



    Quote:

    Sir Ian told a press conference: "I need to make clear that any death is deeply regrettable but as I understand the situation the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions."



    Quote:

    He ran, they followed him. They say they gave him a warning, they then shot him.



    Quote:

    Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man appeared to be wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".



    [
    Quote:

    "Then the man burst in through the door to my right and grabbed hold of the pole and a person by the glass partition near the door, diagonally opposite me.



  • Reply 28 of 55
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    It still leaves out trying to escape and resisting arrest, unless those are synonyms for fleeing.



    Quote:

    Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man appeared to be wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".



    Quote:

    "Then the man burst in through the door to my right and grabbed hold of the pole and a person by the glass partition near the door, diagonally opposite me.



    I have been following BBC all afternoon, heard 3-4 different witnesses testimony all all agreed that he jumped on the train, stumbled and then the police was over him. None of them saw any bomb-like device or him grabbing a passenger. He had a large coat, that was about it. So I am surprised about this testimony.



    But lets see. If the police saw the same as this one person then of course they were justified. If all they did was seeing one man leave a building they had under surveillance, him fleeing when they approached him and then deliberately killed him when they did have his body pressed onto the floor I´ll still reserve my judgment until all the books are opened.
  • Reply 29 of 55
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
  • Reply 30 of 55
    auroraaurora Posts: 1,142member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    Turns out the man was innocent.



    http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlo...534779,00.html




    So he gets shot 5 times for ignoring a cops order to hault, The Terrorist won if you ask me. Same goes for the U.S. and its Patriot Act. Again the Terrorist have won. What makes a free country great is freedom not reactionary breast beating policys that turn everyone into criminals first then asks questions later.
  • Reply 31 of 55
    bronxitebronxite Posts: 104member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aurora

    So he gets shot 5 times for ignoring a cops order to hault, The Terrorist won if you ask me. Same goes for the U.S. and its Patriot Act. Again the Terrorist have won. What makes a free country great is freedom not reactionary breast beating policys that turn everyone into criminals first then asks questions later.



    Partially true.



    Very unfortunate event and I just wanted to assume that they were justified but clearly they weren't.



    The used excessive force and now should be held accountable.



    "Freedom" however needs to take a on a different form in this day and age. There is the ideal situation and there is being realistic. Being realistic, some of our former freedoms will be taken away or more regulated. Example: Bag checks on NYC subways. In order to provide a somewhat safer environment, there will need to be changes.
  • Reply 32 of 55
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bronxite

    Partially true.



    Very unfortunate event and I just wanted to assume that they were justified but clearly they weren't.



    The used excessive force and now should be held accountable.




    No. They did not necessary use excessive force. It depends on "the rules of engagement". If they followed those the police on the spot only did what they were trained to do. Then the problem is elsewhere.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bronxite

    "Freedom" however needs to take a on a different form in this day and age. There is the ideal situation and there is being realistic. Being realistic, some of our former freedoms will be taken away or more regulated. Example: Bag checks on NYC subways. In order to provide a somewhat safer environment, there will need to be changes.



    Freedom: 0

    Terrorists: 1
  • Reply 33 of 55
    bronxitebronxite Posts: 104member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    No. They did not necessary use excessive force. It depends on "the rules of engagement". If they followed those the police on the spot only did what they were trained to do. Then the problem is elsewhere.







    Freedom: 0

    Terrorists: 1




    I find it extremely hard to believe that the "rules of engagement" state that when having a suspect on the floor to blast 5 bullets into his head
  • Reply 34 of 55
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    If he is believed to be an imminent danger to the passengers (carrying a bomb about to go off) as a passenger in the train I would expect them to do as they did. I am prepared to take part in the blame for the mistake that lead to the killing of an innocent man.



    The problem enters when you speculate on how they came to that belief. They cast suspicion on him because he leaves a block in which there is a flat under surveillance and because he flee when heavy armed men starts to follow him. It isn´t the five police men who had gone bad in this situation. Its the way they are trained to see people that is wrong.
  • Reply 35 of 55
    bronxitebronxite Posts: 104member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders



    The problem enters when you speculate on how they came to that belief. They cast suspicion on him because he leaves a block in which there is a flat under surveillance and because he flee when heavy armed men starts to follow him. It isn´t the five police men who had gone bad in this situation. Its the way they are trained to see people that is wrong.




    ok, I can see your point.
  • Reply 36 of 55
    auroraaurora Posts: 1,142member
    Welcome to the Police State. First we let every nut bring over their stupid religion from 2 thousand years ago and then when they do their jihad idiotic nonsense we then treat every innocent person as guilty instead of going after those responsible in the first place. Govt dont care, they all want more power,more say and more taxes.
  • Reply 37 of 55
    bronxitebronxite Posts: 104member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aurora

    Welcome to the Police State. First we let every nut bring over their stupid religion from 2 thousand years ago and then when they do their jihad idiotic nonsense we then treat every innocent person as guilty instead of going after those responsible in the first place. Govt dont care, they all want more power,more say and more taxes.



    how would you suggest we go about going after those responsible and at the same time not taking away some "freedoms"



    personally I dont consider going into a private or government sactioned form of transportation without being checked freedom. but that's me.
  • Reply 38 of 55
    auroraaurora Posts: 1,142member
    Am I the only one to notice that these extreme Islamic Loving Fanatics are blowing crap up everywhere? Perhaps start there. What do you think?
  • Reply 39 of 55
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bronxite

    how would you suggest we go about going after those responsible and at the same time not taking away some "freedoms"



    personally I dont consider going into a private or government sactioned form of transportation without being checked freedom. but that's me.




    Without going into the same rant as Aurora (who make good stew out of immigration, more right to the police and taxes) here is my take.



    Look at the incident in London yesterday. A man is shot by the police because, from their point of view, he was probably involved with the terrorists. He is wearing a large coat that could hide a bomb. When he is challenged by the officers he runs away. The police choose to take no chances and shoot to kill, even after having captured him.



    But from his point of view the situation is as following: He leaves his flat. He notice some un-uniformed men following him, He may have noticed their guns. They yell at him and he chooses to run away. There could be all kinds of reasons to try to run away. They range from a paranoid mind, it could be that he feared the the family of his girl friend, who had threatened him, it could be he feared repercussions from criminals he owed money. He might have suspected the men to be police officers and chose to flee because he was an illegal alien, he had fled prison or was wanted for rape. We don´t know. But none of those things are accepted as reasons for the policeforce to do as they did.



    If the fact that you live in a block of flats that the police have under surveillance makes you suspicious then we all become suspicious since we have no control over the actions of others (a terrorist might look like me, live near me, use the same internet cafe as me etc.) and any slight-besides-normal actions I might do will put me in danger (live in same block as terrorists AND wear a large coat in the summer, Use the same internet cafe AND running from heavily armed men, looking asian AND wearing a rugsack). The reasons why I am put in focus has become arbitrary and from my point of view I then criminalize myself if I don´t conform completely not only the law but also the "normal view of normality".



    That gives the police a hell lot of power and I loose a hell lot of freedom. When the police then asks to see my rugsack in a routine check for terrorists, what then if they find an ounce of hash or a stolen mobile phone? As it is now they have to have reasonable and precise suspicion to look through my things (here they actually have to arrest me before they can search me like that). It curtails all the right from random searches that we held so dearly just a year ago. In the 80s it would have been the first argument against Soviet, that they broke with the rights as an individual from random searches by the government, you know, assumed innocent and all that jazz. If there was a way to ensure that the "terror police" only looked for bombs or other terror related articles in my rugsack and didn´t´see the block of hash, the "property of University of Copenhagen"-marked Powerbook and the photocopied manual to Marxist revolution in my bag it would be another story. But we know that that isn´t´gonna happen.



    So even if its not the argument the product is a society where if you don´t´live up to a predefined view of normality you automatic come under suspicion. Thats not the society I want to live in.
  • Reply 40 of 55
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aurora

    Am I the only one to notice that these extreme Islamic Loving Fanatics are blowing crap up everywhere? Perhaps start there. What do you think?



    Start by reading "Dying to win" and "Dying to kill" and you are halfway there.
Sign In or Register to comment.