Are you sure? I've watched Top Gear on the Discovery Channel before, it's a British show.Robert said:
-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
Man shot 5 times by Police in London wasn't linked to bombings after all
- Thread starter Dean
- Start date
Ah, did not know that...Death Reaper said:
You are correct. I did forget that, but regardless if they were terrorists they would have just outright shot him. There is no valid excuse for him to run after a police officer identifies himself. You can't do it in the states, and you can't do it there.Meksilon said:
The one other thing that I just learned tonight is that they apparently tackled him. If that's true I don't understand the shooting as much. If he was a suicide bomber you think they would have shot from a distance as he approached the mass transit system..
Using your logic if I had a squirt gun that looked like a gun on an officer it should be his fault if he shoots and kills me. After all it was just a toy squirt gun, and it doesn't matter what he believed. It just matters what the end result was, and in that case I'd be dead and he'd be to blame. That logic is flawed, it absolutely matters what he believes. The same way you believe that it matters that he was scared, and as a result ran. State of mind always matters, and in this case they had good reason to believe he was another suicide bomber.
a. He came from a house that was being watched due to links of terrorism. They probably didn't have his details at this point.
b. I'm sure they were watching to see where he was going. If they could follow a terrorist to another terrorist house they may have more intelligence to go off of. They had to make a call whether he was going to a destination, or if he was a suicide bomber.
c. Did they have time? What if he had the bomb on him? What home? There is far to much conjecture here.
d. Again did they have time? If they didn't act, and he was a suicide bomber would you be equally upset for them not acting? We're not in a utopia here. This was a tragedy, but let's be fair.
I don't understand it as much if they tackled him instead of an outright shot to the head. However, I won't criticize them for acting on actionable intelligence. The man is guilty of making foolish choices, and he should still be alive today. It's a tragedy that an innocent man died, but I think a lot of people are taking their criticism to far.
I'm not sure of the exact legalities in Brittan, but in Australia police have to physically touch you to make an arrest. This can be a hand on the shoulder. Simply identifying from a distance and requesting for the suspect to stop is not a legal requirement until they've touched you.Todd said:
If the police approach you you are never legally required to stop and tell them anything. Except in two situations, if the police ask your name and address you must tell them (you cannot sit there and just "say nothing"), and if they pull you over to take an blood-alcohol test you are legally required to talk to them, and to do the test. This is according to Australian law anyway, but I'm sure Brittan is the same there.
You say he had no reason to run, but there guns pointed at him. I imagine he'd be overcome with fear - you can't expect him to think rationally when he's in fear of his life.
No, he isn't guilty of anything more than "being in the wrong place at the wrong time". The ones guilty of making foolish choices are the police.Todd said:
The thing is if the police felt he was a threat they could have intercepted him well before he got anywhere near public transport. They waited to late before intercepting, and they didn't control the situation.
Interesting, this is news to me. However, stopping someone doesn't mean you're going to arrest them. The police can absolutely detain you, and you can't simply run. If they order you to stop and to stay in a spot you must comply or be charged. Normally you will be charged with either fleeing the police, or disorderly conduct if you disobey such an order.Meksilon said:
If you're in a country where guns aren't common and a group of men pull guns and tell you to stop you're telling me you'd run? He made a foolish choice, and I'll stand by that. I still don't understand why the police would tackle him and then shoot him. I can understand the tackle if they were going to make an arrest, or the shot from a distance if they feared he was a suicide bomber. I just don't understand the tackle and then the gun shots.
I would change my story if this wasn't a public place. If it were in a situation where he thought they were criminals about to rob him then maybe. However, considering the fact that guns are so uncommon there, and that it was in a popular place I believe the man was foolish. (Not to mention if they identified themselves as police..) He didn't deserve what happened, but he also made a really poor choice.
If you take offense to this would you also take offense to police using lethal force to end a dangerous car chase?
But unless they arrest someone they don't have to stop and talk to the police. You can be charged with resisting arrest - but only when an arrest attempt has been made, before that you're a free person, allowed to live your life freely. Unless, of course as I explained before they're asked to stop on the road by police to take a breathalyser/pulled over on the road for any other offence.Todd said:
Now it's different in the US I know - where an officer doesn't have to touch the suspect to make an arrest. It's different because they can make an arrest while pointing a gun.
Just because guns aren't common place doesn't mean you're going to think someone with one is a police officer.
Once a car chase becomes dangerous it's correct police procedure to discontinue the chase. If a police officer continues to chase a suspect on the road they've broken police procedure. Any fatalities or casualties that result as this would clearly be the fault of the police.Todd said:
from my knowledge of police, i thought police cannot shoot their guns unless they have a permit or warrant allowing them for a certain case or if their life is in danger.Even in a car chase, if a police shoots a tire to stop the car, they still get charged, happen to my friend father.
I think this example shows that have a fundamental disagreement. From my perspective once it becomes dangerous the suspect loses their right to live. If they are so reckless that they threaten other innocent citizens then I have no objection to lethal force if that potentially will save innocents.Meksilon said:
It sounds like you're more understanding then I am, but I have a feeling that would change if the worst case in those scenarios came true.
Legally you have to take people as they come. If you're chasing an unknown car jacker, and it turns out he has schizophrenia and you used lethal force it's your fault. In a court of law (and I'll be specific here, an Australian court since I know other countries disagree on whether this would be ruled as insane or non-insane) if he was caught and he showed that lack of medication beyond his control was the reason for it then he'd get off with non-insane automatism. That's where the court recognizes he didn't have control over his actions, but does not find him to be insane. They believe his state of mind at the time was not his normal state of mind, but that it was temporary and beyond his control.Todd said:
I saw on TV just yesterday (and it was the news) a police car crash into a furniture shop chasing a suspect. Police procedure is there for a reason, and police who don't follow it deserve to be sued and loose their jobs.
loggerheads
New Member
Todd said:
I don't get how people refuse to see this. If a group of men pulled guns and told me to stop in London in England in broad daylight in public then how I'd act would depend on whether I believed I was dealing with the police, or if this was some exceptionally brazen gangster/contract killing/ overarmed mugging with a case of mistaken identity. Obviously with the first I'd stop, but with the second two running might not seem like such a bad plan. Now If I was a somewhat illegal immigrant Brazilian plumber I can't imagine my reaction.
Equally, regardless of whether it was right that the guy got shot in the end the police operation is a joke, first they let him on the bus then they let him run after they'd told him to stop, then for some reason they had to tackle him before they could shoot him. And that's ignoring this "surveillance" and "intelligence" which had apparently failed to notice that he had done nothing more illegal than staying in the country after his visa expired. As far as I can tell given that he's Brazilian and his name was still Jean Charles de Menezes he doesn't sound like much of a muslim, so what they thought his motivation might have been I can't imagine.
