Rant To cheer you all up!

[nath]

Because I made an incorrect assumption about throds comments and was being generally pissy.

 

[Macey]

I see no difference between me pouncing on that to you pouncing on the fact that throdgrain states that suspected terrorists should be shot if there was reasonable belief at the time that the suspect was about to commit a suicide bombing, which, in the original case, was the way in which the officer did act.

 

[nath]

I see no difference between me pouncing on that to you pouncing on the fact that throdgrain states that suspected terrorists should be shot if there was reasonable belief at the time that the suspect was about to commit a suicide bombing, which, in the original case, was the way in which the officer did act.

So you were doing it to illustrate a point?

I was pouncing on throd because the comment he wrote lead me to believe something about his attitude on the situation. That turned out to be incorrect. I still can't quite see what you were getting at with the grammar nazi shennanigans.

 

[Macey]

That if you want to you can take any comment and construe it as anything that you want to infer, be it racism, xenophobia etc etc etc...

 

[nath]

That if you want to you can take any comment and construe it as anything that you want to infer, be it racism, xenophobia etc etc etc...

Ahh, I see. Well to be honest I'm not convinced you did the best job of demonstrating that, but point taken.

 

[Scouse]

Dont be such a hair splitting fucking wanker.

Well, much as I hate to point it out, we are splitting hairs.

That's why philosophical debate exists - because the thinnest of margins are what separates the Lib. Dem's from the Tories. And why we know, for a fact ('cause science tells us), that all Labour voters are tossers.

Including my mum... Anyway:

It's the only way to be sure

I'm sure if you can manage to quote a science fiction movie as support for an argument then perhaps someone's sitting too firmly in the "black and white" category than the shade of grey that actually makes up real life.

the police bloke believed he was a suicide bomber

I think the policeman wanted to believe it was a suicide bomber...

Hey. Human nature and all that...



BTW: Just back from Halloween party, may not make sense. Will audit tomorrow

 

[Ch3tan]

So, ignoring the last 4 pages of cock waving, the people in charge got it wrong, the intelligence was flawed and they acted in panic. The officers that actually chased and shot him were simply following orders and intelligence that they had no cause to question.

However, I am very worried that the police have lied about what happened, put some spin on it and colluded. It hardly fills you with faith in those that protect us.

 

[throdgrain]

I'd pretty much agree with Ch3tans summary of the situation.

Americans would tell us that we are mad to think that the police can and are able to protect us at every incident, and I'm afraid I'm inclined to agree with them.

Sorry for the last couple of pages of arguing, but Nath often wants to pitch in with his abuse, but if you insult me personally you are surely going to get it back. Any time you want to insult me to my face Nath, just let me know, and we'll arrange it.

 

[throdgrain]

Actually that last thing was a stupid thing to say and I take it back, but you really have pissed me off Nath I dont know why you behave like you do.

 

[rynnor]

On the 7 shots thing and why the police dont shoot to disarm/incapacitate - in the real world I dont think anyone does.

The police have a duty to protect their own lives as well - if they are convinced rightly or wrongly that someone presents such a threat that firearms must be used then they go for the body shots or in this case headshot.

I dont think we can criticise that - its the identification and authorisation that went terribly wrong in this case.

One bullet through the brain does not neccesarily stop a person from taking action - there was the case of a CIA operative who got shot through the head but continued firing his weapon in the 80s and lots of other people survive after being shot in the head nowadays.

 

[00dave]

I'm sure if you can manage to quote a science fiction movie as support for an argument then perhaps someone's sitting too firmly in the "black and white" category than the shade of grey that actually makes up real life.

I thought this was an unnecessary comment. 1. it was a quote from a popular film that was made to try and lighten the mood and 2. I'm hardly wrong either, if you're gonna put one bullet into someone's head to stop him from blowing up you may as well put 7 in to "be sure" he's not going to detonate his device. Those are things I was TAUGHT by people who have been in these situations.

One bullet through the brain does not neccesarily stop a person from taking action - there was the case of a CIA operative who got shot through the head but continued firing his weapon in the 80s and lots of other people survive after being shot in the head nowadays.

You'd be suprised at the stats for gunshot wounds, it's a very high percentage that survive if given immediate medical attention. Without medical attention though you can survive a headshot wound, but get shot in the leg and sever the femoral artery and you'll beed out within the hour, like in black hawk down. And with head shots it's the brain stem you need to sever, it completely cuts off any actions from the body. In theory it's also the best option for a dead man's switch situation.

Bullets are an important factor too, does anybody know what weapon the officer used?

 

[throdgrain]

As I said earlier, I beleive they were low velocity, possibly sub sonic bullets.

Mind you I read this soon after the shooting itself, it may be part of the bullshit that was around at the time.

Edit actually they appear to be these ones which arnt low velocity, in fact they are bad boys indeed, however they flatten and have less chance of richochet, I quoted the Guardian, I feel dirty

 

[nath]

I apologise for implying you were a racist. That was out of line.

 

[throdgrain]

Accepted.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

*snickers at what he caused*

It's amazing to think some people still take everything I write seriously. That's even more stupid than the guff I spouted to get your reaction throd!

 

[Chilly]

orders is orders. I'm glad the man on the ground had the stones to carry them out, flawed as they were. Not many people could put 7 slugs into a persons face at close range, technically or mentally.

 

[Dukat]

SHOOT HIM UNTIL YOU'VE RUN OUT OF BULLETS

Keep firing! we still have shells!!!


On topic:

If you havent been in such a high stress situation before then I think you are going to struggle to understand enough to be in a position to critisize the way the officers in question acted.

You can pull all the mugshots you want that make the two people look different if you want, but photographs can be misleading, if you're in an area that isnt well-lit and with alot of other things going on then I would imagine that it would be easy to make a mistake.

I dont believe all the shit I'm hearing about the police killing someone who has done nothing to provoke it. He obviously did something to make the officers think he was up to something and they acted accordingly, especially given what had happened a matter of days before.

I think its right that we're having all sorts of inquests and investigations into what happened because this sort of thing cannot be allowed to happen - "this sort of thing" meaning police shooting dead unrelated and relatively innocent civilians - but that said, the actual event itself isnt really as outragous and shocking as some of you liberal hippies are making it out to be.

Yes; someone died. Yes; it was horrible. but lets get it into perspective here? It was just two weeks after the 7th of july bombings where alot of people died, everyone was scared and I think alot of people expected more of the same to follow pretty quickly. Obviously anyone involved in anti-terrorism must have been pretty stressed throughout those days and tension must have been really quite high.

Can you really tell me you don't atleast understand the reasons that caused those officers to fire?

 

[rynnor]

I dont believe all the shit I'm hearing about the police killing someone who has done nothing to provoke it. He obviously did something to make the officers think he was up to something and they acted accordingly, especially given what had happened a matter of days before.

I'm surprised you dont know the facts - he was living in a block of flats that a suspected bomber also lived at - he was mistakenly identified as this bomber when he left the flats and when he went to catch a tube they killed him.

He didnt do anything other than to look vaguely like the guy they were after.

 

[Milkshake]

Guys, what is this? You are all entirely confused.

The police that shot the young man did not do it on a whim.

They did not shoot him because he carried a rucksack, or because he had a large jacket on.

They did not shoot him because they thought he was slightly dodgy.

They shot him because of an intensive intelligence operation deemed him to be dangerous, and then were ordered to kill.

If you want to be angry at someone for killing an innocent man, blame the entire infrastructure behind the decision!

 

[00dave]

If you want to be angry at someone for killing an innocent man, blame the entire infrastructure behind the decision!

Or blame the terrorists for creating these situations

 

[Macey]

Keep firing! we still have shells!!!


On topic:

If you havent been in such a high stress situation before then I think you are going to struggle to understand enough to be in a position to critisize the way the officers in question acted.

You can pull all the mugshots you want that make the two people look different if you want, but photographs can be misleading, if you're in an area that isnt well-lit and with alot of other things going on then I would imagine that it would be easy to make a mistake.

I dont believe all the shit I'm hearing about the police killing someone who has done nothing to provoke it. He obviously did something to make the officers think he was up to something and they acted accordingly, especially given what had happened a matter of days before.

I think its right that we're having all sorts of inquests and investigations into what happened because this sort of thing cannot be allowed to happen - "this sort of thing" meaning police shooting dead unrelated and relatively innocent civilians - but that said, the actual event itself isnt really as outragous and shocking as some of you liberal hippies are making it out to be.

Yes; someone died. Yes; it was horrible. but lets get it into perspective here? It was just two weeks after the 7th of july bombings where alot of people died, everyone was scared and I think alot of people expected more of the same to follow pretty quickly. Obviously anyone involved in anti-terrorism must have been pretty stressed throughout those days and tension must have been really quite high.

Can you really tell me you don't atleast understand the reasons that caused those officers to fire?

All I read there was, "Im a really short bloke"

 

[throdgrain]

lmao

 

[Dukat]

He didnt do anything other than to look vaguely like the guy they were after.

There isnt actually any way for you to know that for sure, but even if what you're saying is true, the rest of what I said still stands.

 

[Milkshake]

Well...yeah, ok

 

[Macey]

There isnt actually any way for you to know that for sure, but even if what you're saying is true, the rest of what I said still stands.

It stands about half a foot off the ground...like you!

 

[Dukat]

it stands about half a foot off the ground...like you!

NOYOU!!!!!

 

[Macey]

Thread officially hijacked.