London brazilian murder odd information...

[Xordan]

And this makes it right?
With that argument, Saddam was also right to randomly kill people in his country. Why? Because he had more power.

Didn\'t say it was right Was just stating the fact.

Something I find funny is that the US is enforcing democracy on Iraq...  :rolleyes:  Oh the irony

In dubio pro reo. If the police would shoot anyone who looks suspicious, all tube stations would be full of corpses now. Of course the discussion would be there then as well, but the murder is then on the hands of the terrorist, not on the policeman who swore to serve the citizens in his country.
Shooting on suspicion is to me like imprisoning three people, just because one of them commited a crime and you can\'t be certain which one it was. This is against the very principles of judicature as we know/have it.

You\'re completely ignoring the situation. It wasn\'t just suspicion, it was a few second decision with a guy running away after you\'ve told them to stop into a place full of people which is the area where terrorists aim for. If it was just a guy standing on the streets doing nothing who\'d been shot then that\'s bad.

Fortunately this information seems to have not reached the next best terrorist cell yet - so please, if you are a terrorist and read this, ignore what I just said.

Not easy to make a good one in a basement.
And btw, if someone uses something like this in a attack, I\'m blaming you

Not anymore. Crime and Disorder Act 1998: Abolishment of capital punishment for treason, also: European Convention of Human Rights 1999.

That\'s not what they told us... <.<
*starts plotting*

[Uyaem]

Originally posted by Xordan

And this makes it right?
With that argument, Saddam was also right to randomly kill people in his country. Why? Because he had more power.

Didn\'t say it was right Was just stating the fact.

Then why isn\'t this sufficient reason for you to oppose that action?

Originally posted by Xordan
You\'re completely ignoring the situation. It wasn\'t just suspicion, it was a few second decision with a guy running away after you\'ve told them to stop into a place full of people which is the area where terrorists aim for. If it was just a guy standing on the streets doing nothing who\'d been shot then that\'s bad.

In a place full of people. (I wasn\'t there, so I can\'t know. I\'m just provocatively asking this now because I think the matter is not a black/white right/wrong decision) What if he thought the policeman meant someone else? Could he not have overheard the policeman? What if he didn\'t speak English? Whatever the situation have been in the most precise details, I strongly oppose the justification of such actions. The reason is always to \"fight terrorism\" when in fact you play right into its hands, and let yet another piece of freedom go down the drain.

Originally posted by Xordan

Fortunately this information seems to have not reached the next best terrorist cell yet - so please, if you are a terrorist and read this, ignore what I just said.

Not easy to make a good one in a basement.

Hmm perhaps I wasn\'t clear before, I just meant a trigger that fires on the release of a button, not on pushing it. You press it, things get armed, you release it, bam. Much like a grenade. And such a trigger/switch is easy to make.

Originally posted by Xordan

Not anymore. Crime and Disorder Act 1998: Abolishment of capital punishment for treason, also: European Convention of Human Rights 1999.

That\'s not what they told us... <.<
*starts plotting*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/law/answers/deathpenalty.shtml and http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/timeline.html , had to look it up myself because I just rememered vaguely (\"Wasn\'t there something...\" ).

[Seytra]

Originally posted by fken
Who are you guys to say a man could or even shoud (!) be killed? Really you are desappointing (especially the one who live in countries where the death penalty is absolutly forbidden). I live in a country where people judged one day that death penalty is a bad thing which is representing bestiality and not humanity. I refuse to come back to the ideas of a dark past!

The very only reason why I oppose death penality is that there currently is no way of ensuring that you in fact got the right one. Nothing else. Once this problem is solved, I will support reinstating the death penality. Why? Because I am not willing to pay to feed a criminal who would love to kill or otherwise severely harm innocents, risking that he can escape or get set free by exploiting some dumb flaw in the law or having the best attourney.

A civilization must defend itself, because once it ceases to, it will be smashed. This is something all these well-fed and perfectly safe \"good guys\" prefer to overlook when promoting their ideas of \"even the worst man deserves to live\".

Originally posted by fken
Moreover, if you think killing a criminal will save lifes you are wrong... simply because if one man isnt able to drop a bomb another will do it.

Not quite. Maybe in case of terrorism, but then again, killing a man who is out to plant the bomb will ensure that this bomb doesn\'t go off. If you don\'t kill him, you maybe still have the chance for the second one, but it won\'t matter, because they already have blown up a lot of people, and the second in line will be happy do go to the next spot.
It is not the only thing that is necessary, but it is parto of it.

However, yes, I agree that giving up all freedom is not the answer. Yet, in order to have a viable society, there are some freedoms that, when granted, diminish the freedoms of others, which is why some things are forbidden. Having the police spy on or raid the homes of people at will certainly is far from reasonable, though. There must be a very good reason to do so, because there is no immediate danger, unlike in the situation the thread is about.

[Xordan]

Then why isn\'t this sufficient reason for you to oppose that action?

Because it was a good idea to get him out of there. The reason for them going in wasn\'t because they could. Even if the reason for going in wasn\'t a good idea, it\'s better for him to not be running that country than for him to be running it.

In a place full of people. (I wasn\'t there, so I can\'t know. I\'m just provocatively asking this now because I think the matter is not a black/white right/wrong decision) What if he thought the policeman meant someone else? Could he not have overheard the policeman? What if he didn\'t speak English? Whatever the situation have been in the most precise details, I strongly oppose the justification of such actions. The reason is always to \"fight terrorism\" when in fact you play right into its hands, and let yet another piece of freedom go down the drain.

Any of those might have been the case. But the policemans job was the protect the general public, and he did that job. I\'m sure the policeman didn\'t have time to ask himself all of those questions. Imo, justification is easily given. If I\'d have been on that train then to me it was even more given.

Hmm perhaps I wasn\'t clear before, I just meant a trigger that fires on the release of a button, not on pushing it. You press it, things get armed, you release it, bam. Much like a grenade. And such a trigger/switch is easy to make.

This should really be deleted before a terrorist reads it.

[Valbrandr]

Because it was a good idea to get him out of there. The reason for them going in wasn\'t because they could. Even if the reason for going in wasn\'t a good idea, it\'s better for him to not be running that country than for him to be running it.

Because?

The people are more free?  They have taken out a bad man?  He possibly could have had bio/chem weapons?  He killed many of his own people... in 1992?  Though I did not like Saddam, taking over that country was , to put it bluntly, stupid.  Yea Saddam was a murderer... but he prevented terrorism in his country.  He wanted total power.  So we take him out for *cough *cough oil, so now the country is free if they are not killed by the thousands of terrorists that have moved to Iraq.  

And now it is spreading throughout the world.  American allies are being singled out and attacked for being in this war.

Basically the policeman messed up.  I would say that he should no longer be on the force.  If you mistakenly kill someone for something that was only speculation then you should be brought up on charges.  And I cant believe how Blair talked about it afterward.

[Ashamn]

I\'ve heard once: \"Remove the power from Sadam and the groups he support will grow like ants, fighting for keeping themself alives. Doing everything just to get more well-known around the world..\" Tell me what happened to Iraq now..

Put yourself in the position of the policeman. You see a guy in a big coat on a hot day who you think is a bit suspicous. You ask the guy to stop so you can talk to him and he runs away into tube station, where a terrorist attack took place only the week before. You follow him into the station calling for him to stop but he runs towards the nearest train. You now have a few seconds to react. Either you shoot to kill, or you risk him having a bomb under that big coat and detonating it killing lots of people. I\'d shoot to kill.

Speaking that way, the action that the guy taked was stupid. I think that no one will ever start to run when a cop aproaches him, speaking normaly, asking him to stop.
There are several options to how the cop aproached the man:
1? Shouting, pointing a guy..
2? Shouting.
3? Speaking normally.
4? Running to the suspect, shouting (or not), poiting a gun (or not).

- If the frist one happened I cant say that I would act like the suspect, I would probably run, scared.
- If the second option happened I don\'t see any reason for the suspect run. But, he might confuse the cops with the group that spanked him in the past days, and then runned. (The confusion with the group that attacked him might have been done in the frist option too).
- If the third option happened, there is no reson for the suspect started to run.. Wich makes me think that this way of aproache the suspect hasnt been done (the man probably wouldnt run if someone said to him: \"Err Sir, may I speak with you for some moments please?\" ).
- If the fourth option happened, it would deppend on what the police men were doing at the moment while they where running: Shouting could scare the suspect and make him enter in panic, starting to run. Pointing a gun would do the same (or wrost). The suspect might have done the confusion with the group of men that attacked him (I know I\'m always talking this \"group\" but his existence might be important on the story).

My two cents about what happened before the shoots, and in my opinion the most credible option of what happened before. Hanging out with a gun requires a huge preparation, mostly mental. Most of the men dont have such capacity, like they say here in my country, \"? necess?rio manter o sangue frio\", It\'s important to keep our blood cold, wich means think before act and dont let us take by emotions, just like the police men havent done.

Just like Val said, the police messed up. It\'s wrong to call stupid to a person that dyed without having any fault, because commited a mistake that costed his life.

[Valbrandr]

I am reading over everything right now about it.  Did everyone else know that the cops were in plain clothes?  Not in uniforms.  No wonder why he ran.  I will update this soon.. still reading .

 \"Witnesses said the man appeared to be South Asian and was wearing a heavy padded coat when police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him in the head and torso.\"

I got this from the New York Daily News site.  This story makes me sick.  

[Ashamn]

Who is stupid now huh?
Frist chace, then shoot..
Great job..

[Seytra]

Originally posted by Valbrandr
\"Witnesses said the man appeared to be South Asian and was wearing a heavy padded coat when police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him in the head and torso.\"

If (but only if) this is true this is not even slightly justifiable, and indeed plain murder, for which the ones who committed it, as well as the ones who probably ordered / allowed it, must be held responsible. I don\'t know what Blair said about it, but I guess it\'s not along the lines of \"investigating and bringing the guilty ones to justice\".

I hope it isn\'t true, but yeah.

[Valbrandr]

Here is the adress to the New York Daily News :  http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/330716p-282606c.html

Im not sure how creditable it is but I havent seen this much detail at many of the other sites I have visited.

[Induane]

the same was reported during the Oriley factor today - which many consider conservative -and thus more credible (not my opionion) But my best guess is that is accurate

[fken]

@xordan: I think there is a problem in what you are saying and I dunno why I didnt realize it before... It\'s so obvious !

I simply think you must clearly give your point of view because you said:
1) a terrorist like man tried to go away when he saws the policemen
AND
2) he has a big coat which could have help him to hide a bomb...
AND
3) policemen only have a few seconds to react...

It\'s so big, dont you realize?

You are thinking a guy with a big bomb hidden under his coat, trying to runaway from the policemen is a threat!

I could understand that policemen shot him seeing he would try to explode his bomb. And so I\'ll be able to understand why you say they have only a few seconds... BUT why would he runaway? Did he realized he wasnt on the good place before lightening his bomb? lol

Choose your version:
-> policemen were scared he could explode in front of them
OR
-> he was running away

---------------

@xordan: I think like you that this guy was completely dumb and why not thinking that everyone in Brazil are simply stupid and dumb: policemen are in front of him and he runaway...

or maybe...

maybe am I thinking this guy was simply terryfied and not dumb... Of course he chose the bad way but Nobody know how people can react in such situation... Anyway, I dunno what I would do in such situation! So I wont judge him.

Moreover if you are right, I think you have a nice family Xordan because even if Ive a good family with intelligent members, Im not sure they would react nicely once they are scared...

----------------



@Seytra: do you know guy that you are scaring me with your ideas? really and sincerely, your extremist ideas are scaring me.

In fact I think you are like the terrorists: you have a common idea about freedom and you are following what your neighbourhood think blindly. But one day you will wake up and realize that you didnt follow the others because the others were following you: so you will understand that everyone were following each others without knowing where their steps drove them...

Just understand people dont born with a good side or a dark side. We arent in Star Wars, we arent in a videogame! If I were in front of a terrorist I wouldnt want to kill him, I just would want to ask him \"why?\". People who kill before having the answer are simply weak because they arent strong enough to change the situation. And moreover, they react exactly like the terrorist: they kill! Really, if I could speak to a terrorist and turn him into a person able to defend his opinion against occident with intelligence and not with bomb, I would be happy... but I swear you it would be a better threat for occident!

And dont tell me terrorists are terrorists. The governments which are accusing terrorists are commiting awful acts at the same time!
ie: Bush government which wants a legal immunity for american soldiers while american soldiers are killing journalists, british soldiers, iraq civilians or simply lost their  soul in a so famous iraq jail...
ie: governments which wage wars in weak country to control their oil
ie: french government which is selling every good companies of France and spend all the money to be sure they could be reelected...

Please think the terrorist has a soul, a family, a story... just try to imagine why does he think that commit a suicide is the better way to reach freedom, to help the world... And never forget that before judging you need to know everything: you cant say \"he became a terrorist because of the muslim fundamentalist education\" because another question will appear: \"why is it so simple to transform anyone into a human bomb?\" and Im sure you dont want to find the answer...

----------------

By the way, I just read a french newspaper known to be an objective and satyrical one... and I\'m scared because of one word: \"God\"...

For you this word isnt any problem but for me it\'s another step to the anti USA ideas:

Explanation:

Until now french hasnt done any difference between \"american god\" and \"french god\". Everyone said there is a unique god (bla bla bla... you know the stereotypes). And sometimes... people speak about \"Allah\" exactly like if the \"french god\" and the \"muslim one\" were different...

the translation of \"God\" in french is \"Dieu\"

but

When the newspaper spoke about american god they say satyrically \"God\" (and not \"Dieu\") like if there were a difference...

a way to say American has their own god, it\'s not ours...

and it is scarying because it\'s another part of our relationship which is beeing shattered. I think that today, french arent looking at american like the savers of 1945 but like a simple threat.

I hope every americans here understand there is a real problem. I hope nobody think about a good side and an evil side. I hope people here can understand that everyone need to walk together and not only think about individualism. Because I really dont want to have to kill someone one day because of a stupid war and realize after that it was a man I know called Seytra, Ashamn, Induane, Valbrandr or Xordan. (and if it would be Karyuu I would commit a suicide just after... snif Karyuu... ;( )

Today I\'m understanding all the evil I saw in the american movies I watched before: everytime a good side and an evil side opposition... a good hero who kill a big bad evil boy.

[dragonfire999]

The irony in this all, is that not only did america help in 1945, france helped america all the way back to revolutionary times, sending their navy, officers, general\'s ect..
You would think we would have a great relationship, but we really dont

[fken]

And even... I learnt a lot of bad things about the two WW about Americans...

Americans said they have to help France because of the fact France helped them for their revolution...

but  learnt a lot of american weapons has been sold to the Germans during the two WW... I learnt American wait a lot before helping, I learnt Allies were able to come before. I learnt allies dropped bombs on Dresdes killing poor civilian with no reasons, I learnt America drops the nuclear bombs for testing purpose, I learnt the Marshall plan was a way to find new exportation trades, I learnt the Marshall plan forced french to accept american product especially american movies  to show the american way of life to the people of France...

I know that America find its \"boys\" tanks to the poverty of a big part of its nation, I know black people were sent the first to the front line (I know that algerian people and others french colonization people were sent the first to the front line too :rolleyes: ), I know the one who save France were poor people sent to a real Slaughterhouse to get killed (poor people are only name written on the paper) and to help rich people to trade once the peace came back.

Sometimes Im wondering if Im the only one who think his ideas are only utopia because the real world is awful...

There is no need to compare the french and the american because Im sure France didnt help USA with no reason in the 18th century. Unfortunately, my teachers never find it was interesting to teach what\'s happened during the american revolution so I still dunno what really happened there... its only something like Americans who wanted to become independant toward UK in my mind... nopthing more...

[Xordan]

Originally posted by Valbrandr
total power.  So we take him out for *cough *cough oil, so now the country is free if they are not killed by the thousands of terrorists that have moved to Iraq.  

First: This is not a clever point of view. You do know it would have cost the US much less just to buy all the oil off Iraq than to invade? If it was for oil then they\'ve made a huge loss.

As for everything else:

It\'s obvious we all have different points of view. It\'s also very obvious that we\'ve only got the media to rely on, who each tell a slightly different story to bend the viewer/reader/listeners way of thinking. With all these different bits of info it\'s very hard for us to compare our views, because we are all talking about different situations. Imo, what I am saying is perfectly logical and 100% correct. To another person, and another situation what they are saying is also perfectly logical and 100% correct. We should all try to read lots of different news sources and take them all into consideration before giving a point of view. Each news source is written in a way which tries to convince you it is true, so by reading different ones, you see the conflicts and piece together something more factual. I never quote any news sites because I know that the report is biased and not completely accurate.

As for the US and France, the bad relations is due to both countries having bad leaders who piss each other off. It\'s quite a recent thing. The french leader (Can\'t spell his name) is just a very crap leader. He keeps insulting the UK all the time, which really doesn\'t help things. George W Bush thinks he\'s doing good at heart, but doesn\'t have the brains to back up the will. He gets annoyed because France keeps getting in the way of the good he thinks he\'s doing, and because France keeps insulting the UK. (Imo GWB would make a brilliant baseball coach.

It\'s the UK and France which have a long line of bad relations, so any conflict is to be expected

Oh, and Tony Blair is t3h pwnest Prime Minster we\'ve ever had. I don\'t expect non-UK people to think so because your media hates him and never reports all the good things he does. And UK people voted him in 3x in a row by large margins... so he must be liked. (Either that or all the opposition are really, really crap. But then they\'d get voted in anyway if Tony Blair was doing such a bad job as everyone non-UK seems to think.)

Oh, and the independance of US from UK was because the UK goverment kept charging stupidly high taxes. So the US revolted, and the UK sent in about 1/5 of it\'s army. This got repelled and the UK couldn\'t be bothed getting it back because they thought it wasn\'t worth enough. France helped the US by giving it supplies and stuff during this time, and France nearly sank a UK ship as well. If France had sunk it then the UK would have sent it\'s army into France and France would be a part of the UK today (Remember that the UK had the most powerful navy and army in the world at this time. Nothing could stand in our way if we made an effort.)....  and that\'s a very short history.