Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Police Shootings
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 431 of 670 (868400)
12-11-2019 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by PaulK
12-09-2019 12:03 PM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
PaulK writes:
quote:
Tangle cut-n-pasted without attribution, and I sought out the source of his cut-n-paste and posted a link to the full Wikipedia article. Of what use would quoting from Tangle's cut-n-paste be?
To give an accurate impression of what Tangle posted of course. The fact that you quoted material that supported your claims but not more relevant material that contradicted you is quite telling.
Do tell.
quote:
...It's been insisted many multiple times that he must have been shot in the head,...
As I stated that appeared to be where the most likely shooter was aiming, and as Tangle posted, that is the correct action when a suicide vest is present.
You may have seen things in the video that weren't really there because of your certainty that the police knew he was wearing a suicide vest and would therefore have shot him in the head.
On the other hand you presented no evidence at all for him being shot in the body, until this post.
It's just one article, insufficient to be definitive.
quote:
I have also questioned at what point the police had visual evidence that the suspect was wearing a suicide vest, and there's been no answer to that either.
The video has evidence - which I pointed out - that shows that they were unlikely to have noticed it until they had pulled at least some of the people off of the attacker.
Yes, I've made the same point myself several times, that the police couldn't see any suicide vest with passersby atop him.
The audio has a civilian asking if the attacker was going to set off a bomb, which may refer to the belt.
Where in the video does that audio occur. Here's a copy again:
From the image showing the belt, it seems to me that the officers on the spot should have noticed the belt by the time they pulled the last person off.
That's a possibility, but not something that's been established. The suspect was wearing a coat, and we can't tell at what point the coat becomes positioned in such a way as to make the belt visible.
quote:
I don't know why searches didn't turn this up earlier, but I have now come across an article that states where the suspect was shot, and it wasn't in the head. This is from https://www.mirror.co.uk/...ge-terrorist-bled-death-21026112:
That would be disturbing if it turned out to be true.
Why is that?
Given the nature of the attack and the location I am certain that terrorism was on their minds. This is not the first terrorist knife attack at London Bridge.
Yes, I agree that the possibility it was a terrorist attack was likely on their minds.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by PaulK, posted 12-09-2019 12:03 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 432 of 670 (868402)
12-11-2019 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by PaulK
12-09-2019 1:26 PM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
Thanks for your opinions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by PaulK, posted 12-09-2019 1:26 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 433 of 670 (868403)
12-11-2019 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Hyroglyphx
12-09-2019 3:23 PM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
Hyroglyphx writes:
By way of comparison between you and I, sure, I might as well be Hitler incarnate.
I don't see it that way. What I do believe is that many of your posts in this thread reflect a lack of respect for human life.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-09-2019 3:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 434 of 670 (868405)
12-11-2019 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by Tangle
12-10-2019 5:58 PM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
Tangle writes:
Percy writes:
In the sense of being executions they pretty much are.
Sorry, you can't declare them both as executions in order to claim that they are therefore executions.
That wasn't my argument.
Since the police did not know the identify of the attacker at that time, they could not possibly know that the suspect had served time in prison for terrorist activities.
And since one victim died about fifteen minutes after the suspect was killed, and the other victim only a few minutes before the suspect was killed, it seems very unlikely that the police on the bridge with the guns could have known that the suspect had killed anyone.
That's just silly.
What I said is factual.
The armed police would have known that they were being called to a terrorist incident.
I could agree that the armed police officers might easily have considered the possibility that they were responding to a terrorist incident, but it wasn't classified as such until after the fact.
It wasn't declared a terrorist incident until after it was all over.
You can't possibly think that the public announcement that it's a terrorist incident after the fact has anything to do with what will have been communicated to the armed units when called in as a result of the emergency calls? Surely you're not that naive?
I believe they would have communicated factual information, not speculation. How does one tell the difference between a mass murder committed by a mass murderer versus one committed by a terrorist?
Policy and training is wrong. There should be an arrested suspect, not a dead one.
Says you, half a world away from the comfort of your armchair.
We both have access to all the same information. Neither of us was an eyewitness to any of it. You are no different from me.
You're in a group of one at the moment.
Well, yes, that part of what you say is true.
Time to change the policy and procedures.
I think you should stick to your campaign to stop ignorant, prejudiced and untrained police shooting black people for no reason and don't harm your position by arguing badly about lawful and necessary shooting of armed terrorists.
If you've been following this thread then you know that I periodically check for updates on the incidents I've posted about. At some point an official report will be issued and people can look back on what they've posted here and see how well their speculations panned out.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Tangle, posted 12-10-2019 5:58 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Tangle, posted 12-12-2019 2:40 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 435 of 670 (868407)
12-11-2019 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by ringo
12-11-2019 2:07 PM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
ringo writes:
Percy writes:
Did the police think he was wearing a suicide vest at the time they killed him?
There's no point in speculating about what they were thinking.
No, no, sorry, I wasn't clear enough. That's not what I meant.
You said that "a man with a suicide vest is a clear and present danger, period." I was trying to remind you of a point I had made in earlier posts, that it is possible, since there's a news report that police shot the suspect in the chest and abdomen, that they did not think he was wearing a suicide vest.
I agree with you that a man with an actual for real suicide vest represents a grave danger, but whatever the suspect was wearing was not a vest (it could have been a belt) and was fake anyway.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by ringo, posted 12-11-2019 2:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by ringo, posted 12-12-2019 10:42 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 436 of 670 (868408)
12-11-2019 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by DrJones*
12-11-2019 2:27 PM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
DrJones* writes:
For those police who have guns I'm in favor of including policies, procedures and training for their non-lethal use
there is no non-lethal use for guns in a police situation, if the situation has escalated to where you need to use a gun it should be to kill.
Yes, I think everyone knows that current policies, procedures and training are to only use guns lethally. That's why I proposed changing them.
edit a couple hours after the fact: also if you widen the criteria for acceptable use of a firearm you're going to get more use of a firearm with more deaths.
I would like to narrow the criteria but widen the options.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by DrJones*, posted 12-11-2019 2:27 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by DrJones*, posted 12-11-2019 9:14 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 437 of 670 (868409)
12-11-2019 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 430 by Tangle
12-11-2019 2:50 PM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
Tangle writes:
Percy writes:
Most of that is post facto information.
Armed police were called to a multiple stabbing and suspected terrorist attack. It is not post facto.
Really? I did seek information about this but didn't find anything like that, only things like this from https://www.msn.com/...-incident-at-london-bridge/vi-BBXvNnN:
quote:
British police say they are responding to an incident unfolding in central London. London's Metropolitan Police said in a post on Twitter that they were in the "early stages" of the incident and called on public to follow instruction from officers at the scene.
And this from Stabbings Around London Bridge Kill 2 in ‘Terrorist Incident’ - The New York Times:
quote:
It has been declared a terrorist incident, said Neil Basu, the assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. I must stress, however, that we retain an open mind as to any motive.
That's the kind of thing I was able to find. I wasn't able to find anything saying that police were being called to a suspected terrorist attack. If you have a reference I will of course concede the point.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by Tangle, posted 12-11-2019 2:50 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 443 of 670 (868436)
12-12-2019 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by Tangle
12-12-2019 2:40 AM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
Tangle writes:
Percy writes:
That wasn't my argument.
You didn't have an argument, you just declared them executions.
I realize I haven't convinced anyone, but is that what we've come to, just declaring arguments weren't made and don't exist?
What I said is factual.
It's pure speculation.
No, it's factual. Again, is that what we've come to, just ignoring facts by declaring them speculation?
You have no idea what information the police were given.
I didn't say I did. I was challenging your claim to know that the police were told a suspected terrorist attack was in progress. As I said in Message 437, I could find nothing that says this but that if you could provide a reference I would of course concede the point. Where's your reference, the source of your information, the thing that makes you so sure you're right?
At the very least the police would know that someone is attacking people with a knife on London Bridge.
Yes, of course, one of the articles I cited in Message 437 said pretty much that.
It would be communicated at the very least as a suspected, life threatening terrorist incident.
It could have been. Was it?
I could agree that the armed police officers might easily have considered the possibility that they were responding to a terrorist incident, but it wasn't classified as such until after the fact.
Irrelevant
Why are you responding this way? My response to your comment, carefully composed after reading it and thinking through my answer, is only irrelevant if your own comment was irrelevant.
We both have access to all the same information. Neither of us was an eyewitness to any of it. You are no different from me.
But you're the one accusing the police of acting as executioners.
Watch the videos. This video is positioned at exactly the point where police are firing at a defenseless suspect rolling around on the ground in pain (the police are shown firing from around a hundred feet away in another part of the video). How is that not an execution? Here's the video:
If you've been following this thread then you know that I periodically check for updates on the incidents I've posted about. At some point an official report will be issued and people can look back on what they've posted here and see how well their speculations panned out.
Well, you'll see that the guy that attacked the terrorist with a fire extinguisher says that he was wearing a suicide belt not a vest. He saw it inside the building and taunted him to detonate it. The terrorist said that he was waiting for the police.
He was the guy that sat on top of the terrorist. He shouted to the police that he had a suicide belt on and told them to shoot him. Which they did.
quote:
He said: "It seemed like ages before they shot him. It wasn't all gung-ho and trigger happy, they proper took their time, to the point where I did scream 'shoot him'."
London Bridge attack: Reformed prisoner who fought knifeman 'prepared to die' - BBC News
Finally a reference. The timestamp on the article says it came out about eight hours ago, so this is new information.
But it's also inconsistent with police firing into the chest and abdomen. If Crilly really yelled at the police that the suspect had a suicide belt then either they didn't hear him or didn't believe him, because the police were not taking head shots. Killing a defenseless man rolling around in pain from previous gun shots is an execution. If you don't like that word then try murder or assassination.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Tangle, posted 12-12-2019 2:40 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by Tangle, posted 12-12-2019 1:22 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 444 of 670 (868437)
12-12-2019 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 438 by DrJones*
12-11-2019 9:14 PM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
DrJones* writes:
I would like to narrow the criteria but widen the options.
so after all the railing against trigger happy police you actually want them to use their guns more? cause that's what you're going to get if you allow firearms to be used in a non-lethal manner.
First you say that widening the criteria will cause increased use of firearms by police, then when I respond that I actually want to narrow the criteria you say that that, too, will cause increased use of firearms by police. Make up your mind.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by DrJones*, posted 12-11-2019 9:14 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by DrJones*, posted 12-12-2019 10:01 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 447 of 670 (868444)
12-12-2019 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 445 by DrJones*
12-12-2019 10:01 AM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
DrJones* writes:
if you allow cops to shoot to wound you're going to get more shootings.
If you're right then it's a bad idea. Are you right? If so, why?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by DrJones*, posted 12-12-2019 10:01 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by DrJones*, posted 12-12-2019 1:13 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 448 of 670 (868445)
12-12-2019 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by ringo
12-12-2019 10:42 AM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
ringo writes:
Saying "it is possible" is speculating.
You said there was no point in speculating about what they were thinking, but their thinking isn't what I was speculating about. I was speculating about what they knew.
But they didn't know it was a fake until after they subdued him.
If after subduing him they knew it was fake, why did they kill an unarmed man?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by ringo, posted 12-12-2019 10:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by ringo, posted 12-13-2019 10:51 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 451 of 670 (868471)
12-12-2019 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 450 by Tangle
12-12-2019 1:22 PM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
Tangle writes:
I give up, you've totally lost the plot.
I'm just following the evidence where it leads. Much of what others have claimed is not supported by the evidence.
To summarise. A terrorist wearing a suicide belt (that turned out to be fake) murdered two people and attempted to murder more. Civilians intervened armed police were called to the incident, they were told that the murderers was wearing a suicide belt, they saw the belt so they shot him dead.
This is a good example of a claim unsupported by evidence. How is this consistent with shooting the suspect in the same area of the body as the suicide belt, especially with people and busses just a few lanes of bridge away from him should the belt explode?
And here again is the video positioned where the suspect is rolling around in pain on the ground while police continue to shoot him (also shows how close people were to him):
How do you justify this?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by Tangle, posted 12-12-2019 1:22 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by Tangle, posted 12-13-2019 2:36 AM Percy has replied
 Message 454 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-13-2019 10:40 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 460 of 670 (868577)
12-14-2019 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by Tangle
12-13-2019 2:36 AM


Police Should Not Kill Unnecessarily
Tangle writes:
Percy writes:
How do you justify this?
He was a terrorist that had murdered two people and was actively trying to murder still more.
I don't understand why you continue repeating these untrue statements.
At the time the suspect was killed only one had died, and unless communication between the EMTs and the police on the bridge was very fast and very efficient, the police didn't know anyone had died at all.
And he wasn't actively trying to murder anyone at the time he was killed. He was disarmed and had a pile of passersby atop him.
And the police obviously didn't believe he was wearing a suicide belt or vest no matter what Crilly yelled because they fired into the suspect's chest and abdomen, precisely where a suicide belt or vest would be.
And this video that you keep ignoring shows the suspect rolling around on the ground in pain and no threat to anyone while police continue to shoot him. The video is, again, pre-positioned at the exact right spot:
There will be a detailed inquest, the police are covered by the same law of reasonable force as I am. Our criminal justice system is very robust, if it was an unlawful killing, we'll find out.
No one is arguing that it was an unlawful killing. Is that why you're repeating the same false arguments, because you're upset that I'm arguing the killing was unlawful? Well I'm not, and I don't know where you got that idea. My argument is that the killing was unnecessary, and that if it followed all relevant policies, procedures and training then those should be changed.
Yes, there will be an inquest. As I posted earlier, I periodically (like every few months) check the incidents I've posted about here to see if there have been any recent developments. When the results of the inquest come out I'll know about it.
Meanwhile the people that put their lives at risk by running towards harm to protect us deserve our support, not condemnation as executioners.
Ah, so that's the problem, you didn't like it being called an execution. You see use of that word as an attack on the police. Well, it is, in a way, but not on the police on the bridge. I'm sure they were only following protocols and orders. It's the police as an entire department or institution that I blame, because they're responsible for developing the current policies, procedures and training, and so they are responsible for the execution.
So there's no need to go all "keep throwing up the same debunked objections again and again while not addressing any arguments made or evidence presented" on me. I'm sorry you don't like the term execution, but keep things rational and factual, will you please?
The current message subtitle of "Unarmed Police Does Work" isn't right for what we're discussing now, so I've changed it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Tangle, posted 12-13-2019 2:36 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2019 5:44 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 461 of 670 (868580)
12-14-2019 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by caffeine
12-13-2019 9:45 AM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
caffeine writes:
While on the whole I agree that Percy is clutching at straws in a stubborn refusal to accept that a police shooting can be justified, the above is childishly naive.
That police shootings are never justified is not my position.
My position is that many police shootings are unjustified, and that in this particular instance killing the suspect was unnecessary. Besides taking a human life unnecessarily, they also lost the primary information source.
How many British police have been successfully convicted for murdering someone? I'll give you a clue - it's less than one.
Really? Wow!
I'd guess that Britain has many, many fewer police killings than the US, so we can't compare numbers. We have around a thousand police killings per year, and I'd guess that less than 0.01% result in convictions. According to Wikipedia only 19 police officers have been convicted of murder (Category:American police officers convicted of murder - Wikipedia), but it doesn't say what time period that covers. By not mentioning a time period it implies that that's the total since the founding of the nation, but that number feels way too small for 230 years, so I'm not going to consider that number reliable.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by caffeine, posted 12-13-2019 9:45 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 462 of 670 (868581)
12-14-2019 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by Hyroglyphx
12-13-2019 10:40 AM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
Hyroglyphx writes:
How do you justify this?
I think that has been sufficiently answered at this point.
Not actually. Avoidance like this or false answers have been the common response.
Here's the video again pre-positioned to where the suspect is rolling around in pain on the ground unarmed:
How do you justify killing this man?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-13-2019 10:40 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by DrJones*, posted 12-14-2019 6:53 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024