The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
3 tube station closed because of "incidents"
Anybody know what's going on, or is it just precaution?
Anybody know what's going on, or is it just precaution?
Page:
gerrid wrote:
> The police were ordered to shoot suspected suicide bombers on site.
> Unless they acted completely without directive, then they're immune
> from prosecution. If, in a war, the army grenades a room and kills
> some innocents, they're not tried for manslaughter, it's the same
> sort of thing here.
I'm not saying they're not immune to prosecution, I'm saying should they be... And the guy who was shot was not a suicide bomber. They thought he was.
> They meant to kill him because they thought they were trying to
> protect the population. They're allowed to do that - it's not against
> the law. If they had sufficient reason to suspect he was a threat then
> they haven't commited any crimes.
If I had reason to believe someone was going to kill me (but they hadn't attempted it yet) so I killed them first... Would I be tried? Yes, of course. The same is true here. The police suspected this guy could have had a bomb, and he was shot eight times. Another thing that has made me more critical of the police in this instance is that they are saying he was only shot because they had serious suspicions that he could be a suicide bomber... Yet they let him on two buses before doing anything. If their suspicions had been that serious surely they would have stoppped him before he got on any mode of public transport?
> The police were ordered to shoot suspected suicide bombers on site.
> Unless they acted completely without directive, then they're immune
> from prosecution. If, in a war, the army grenades a room and kills
> some innocents, they're not tried for manslaughter, it's the same
> sort of thing here.
I'm not saying they're not immune to prosecution, I'm saying should they be... And the guy who was shot was not a suicide bomber. They thought he was.
> They meant to kill him because they thought they were trying to
> protect the population. They're allowed to do that - it's not against
> the law. If they had sufficient reason to suspect he was a threat then
> they haven't commited any crimes.
If I had reason to believe someone was going to kill me (but they hadn't attempted it yet) so I killed them first... Would I be tried? Yes, of course. The same is true here. The police suspected this guy could have had a bomb, and he was shot eight times. Another thing that has made me more critical of the police in this instance is that they are saying he was only shot because they had serious suspicions that he could be a suicide bomber... Yet they let him on two buses before doing anything. If their suspicions had been that serious surely they would have stoppped him before he got on any mode of public transport?
> Sibs wrote:
> Surely this indicates one rule for the police and another for the
> wider population?
>
> Well obviously the Police have different rules. They're allowed to
> use force to arrest criminals and speed around in their cars, because
> it is deemed necessary for them to effectively carry out their job. Of
> course the police have different rules to the general population - if
> they operated under the exact same constraints that they strive to
> enforce, they'd be useless.
I think what I meant was better summed up by my closing sentence "it still seems like one justice for the public and another for the police."... Obviously the police need to operate with different 'rules' so they actually have the powers of arrest and suchlike. But when it comes to justice, surely there should be no double standard. Otherwise doesn't it mean the police are somewhat 'immune' to the justice they claim to enforce?
> Surely this indicates one rule for the police and another for the
> wider population?
>
> Well obviously the Police have different rules. They're allowed to
> use force to arrest criminals and speed around in their cars, because
> it is deemed necessary for them to effectively carry out their job. Of
> course the police have different rules to the general population - if
> they operated under the exact same constraints that they strive to
> enforce, they'd be useless.
I think what I meant was better summed up by my closing sentence "it still seems like one justice for the public and another for the police."... Obviously the police need to operate with different 'rules' so they actually have the powers of arrest and suchlike. But when it comes to justice, surely there should be no double standard. Otherwise doesn't it mean the police are somewhat 'immune' to the justice they claim to enforce?
Sibs wrote:
> If someone tries to mug you
> with a knife and you fight back, and in the struggle the mugger gets
> stabbed with his own knife and died... You'd mostlikely be tried for
> manslaughter no?
Actually if you are truly defending yourself from attack, and if the jury decides that the use of lethal force was necessary, you won't get done for manslaughter. You're obviously allowed to defend yourself from attack, and if someone is trying to kill you, and your only option for saving your life is to kill them, you can't be prosecuted.
> If someone tries to mug you
> with a knife and you fight back, and in the struggle the mugger gets
> stabbed with his own knife and died... You'd mostlikely be tried for
> manslaughter no?
Actually if you are truly defending yourself from attack, and if the jury decides that the use of lethal force was necessary, you won't get done for manslaughter. You're obviously allowed to defend yourself from attack, and if someone is trying to kill you, and your only option for saving your life is to kill them, you can't be prosecuted.
The police were ordered to shoot suspected suicide bombers on site. Unless they acted completely without directive, then they're immune from prosecution. If, in a war, the army grenades a room and kills some innocents, they're not tried for manslaughter, it's the same sort of thing here.
They meant to kill him because they thought they were trying to protect the population. They're allowed to do that - it's not against the law. If they had sufficient reason to suspect he was a threat then they haven't commited any crimes.
Sibs wrote:
> Surely this indicates one rule for the police and another for the
> wider population?
Well obviously the Police have different rules. They're allowed to use force to arrest criminals and speed around in their cars, because it is deemed necessary for them to effectively carry out their job. Of course the police have different rules to the general population - if they operated under the exact same constraints that they strive to enforce, they'd be useless.
They meant to kill him because they thought they were trying to protect the population. They're allowed to do that - it's not against the law. If they had sufficient reason to suspect he was a threat then they haven't commited any crimes.
Sibs wrote:
> Surely this indicates one rule for the police and another for the
> wider population?
Well obviously the Police have different rules. They're allowed to use force to arrest criminals and speed around in their cars, because it is deemed necessary for them to effectively carry out their job. Of course the police have different rules to the general population - if they operated under the exact same constraints that they strive to enforce, they'd be useless.
Interesting point that was raised on another forum...
Should the policeman (or policemen) who killed shot the guy be tried for murder / manslaughter?
I'll bet the initial reaction will always be a no, or possibly a wtf are you talking about... But put it this way. Our system of justice is based not only on our actions, but their consequences. If you are caught speeding you might get a fine. If you are speeding and as a result you knock someone over and kill them, you're looking at a jail sentence I'm guessing. At any rate something far more severe. Even though a million other people may have sped on that same road at some point in their lives, if you are doing exactly the same thing as them and you kill someone, you get sent down, they don't.
So look at this case. An innocent man was shot dead. That was the consequence of the police action. Regardless of their reason for doing so an innocent man still died as a result of their actions. So in our system of justice that puts just as much weight on the consequences of our actions as the actions themselves, shouldn't the police officers responsible be tried for manslaughter?
Another (perhaps more relevant) example; If someone tries to mug you with a knife and you fight back, and in the struggle the mugger gets stabbed with his own knife and died... You'd mostlikely be tried for manslaughter no? Regardless of the fact that you were defending yourself from attack, trying to preserve your own life. These police officers may well have been trying to preserve their own lives and the lives of others if they believed the guy had a bomb. But their actions still resulted in a mans death.
Surely this indicates one rule for the police and another for the wider population? Granted, use of fire-arms isn't in the 'job description' of many other occupations, but it still seems like one justice for the public and another for the police.
Should the policeman (or policemen) who killed shot the guy be tried for murder / manslaughter?
I'll bet the initial reaction will always be a no, or possibly a wtf are you talking about... But put it this way. Our system of justice is based not only on our actions, but their consequences. If you are caught speeding you might get a fine. If you are speeding and as a result you knock someone over and kill them, you're looking at a jail sentence I'm guessing. At any rate something far more severe. Even though a million other people may have sped on that same road at some point in their lives, if you are doing exactly the same thing as them and you kill someone, you get sent down, they don't.
So look at this case. An innocent man was shot dead. That was the consequence of the police action. Regardless of their reason for doing so an innocent man still died as a result of their actions. So in our system of justice that puts just as much weight on the consequences of our actions as the actions themselves, shouldn't the police officers responsible be tried for manslaughter?
Another (perhaps more relevant) example; If someone tries to mug you with a knife and you fight back, and in the struggle the mugger gets stabbed with his own knife and died... You'd mostlikely be tried for manslaughter no? Regardless of the fact that you were defending yourself from attack, trying to preserve your own life. These police officers may well have been trying to preserve their own lives and the lives of others if they believed the guy had a bomb. But their actions still resulted in a mans death.
Surely this indicates one rule for the police and another for the wider population? Granted, use of fire-arms isn't in the 'job description' of many other occupations, but it still seems like one justice for the public and another for the police.
I think they are incredibly brave - I mean their job isn't being made any easier by the press and the politicians. I think we should be informed about such events but not go on about how we are not afraid and basically giving the terrorists the finger because we've got back on form. That was bound to rub the terrorists up the wrong way!
I have to agree, they have made terrific progress over the last few weeks and its nice to think that perhaps a few other nearby countries are taking note.
ssxpro wrote:
I'd like to cling to the idea
> that we can trust our own police force in things like this.
They really have proven themselves to be in top form. I think the police are underrated.
I'd like to cling to the idea
> that we can trust our own police force in things like this.
They really have proven themselves to be in top form. I think the police are underrated.
Thanks YH, that does sound like the police had time to deduce that the possible bomb threat was seperated from the potential bombers. However, as Light pointed out, it doesn't quite fit in place yet.
Perhaps the police pursuing the man to the tube station, since they were plain clothed, had no taser gun (which would probably stand out) and in the rush to catch the guy before the tube had no opportunity to stop and ask for one. A little thin, but I'd like to cling to the idea that we can trust our own police force in things like this.
Perhaps the police pursuing the man to the tube station, since they were plain clothed, had no taser gun (which would probably stand out) and in the rush to catch the guy before the tube had no opportunity to stop and ask for one. A little thin, but I'd like to cling to the idea that we can trust our own police force in things like this.
See, what got me thinking was when the Madrid bombers were arrested; they were in a flat somewhere, yet they blew themselves up. Presumably then, there was that danger here to.
Like I said earlier, I'm not going to diss the police but nor can I let this drop entirely; such a balls up doesn't sit right with me at all, and I hope to hell it's the last one.
Like I said earlier, I'm not going to diss the police but nor can I let this drop entirely; such a balls up doesn't sit right with me at all, and I hope to hell it's the last one.
Page: