Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (9005 total)
36 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 35 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 881,072 Year: 12,820/23,288 Month: 545/1,527 Week: 224/207 Day: 1/45 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Police Shootings
Percy
Member
Posts: 19855
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 406 of 539 (868111)
12-07-2019 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 395 by PaulK
12-06-2019 1:12 PM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
PaulK writes:

quote:
I think I am only guilty of arguing for my position, as are you.

I think that it should be self-evident that a trained professional would not be taking silly risks.

How many trained professionals (not just police but in any field) are in jail or dead from taking unnecessary risks or making mistakes? Trained professionals aren't movie superheroes. They're just people - they're not perfect and they make mistakes, just like everyone else.

To argue against that with anything but sarcasm seems pointless. Yet this goes on and on.

There was something grammatically wrong with your words as originally written, so I've modified them to what I think you intended.

If all you've got is sarcasm then I guess that's all you've got. Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying that ridicule is the proper response to unintelligible propositions - perhaps assessing whether my propositions are truly unintelligible is worthwhile before resorting to solely sarcastic responses.

quote:
Uh, because you're not?

Since I am obviously correct that isn’t it.

An obviously sarcastic response.

quote:
And you know this how?

Because a head shot at close range with an accurate weapon is very unlikely to hit the vest.

Assumptions you're making that are reasonable but that are, at this stage, still assumptions and not facts:

  • It was a head shot (or two shots - reports are that the suspect was shot twice, but there's not yet any information about where)
  • The shots were at close range. There's no video that includes the actual shots.
  • The head shot was unlikely to hit the vest. But what if the suspect suddenly jumps up just as a policeman is firing. If you watch the video carefully around 23 seconds you'll see the suspect appears to be rising from the ground as the last passersby is pulled off.

quote:
I'll interpret this confused explanation as an indication that you'd like to drop this point.

I’ll interpret that as a desire to be let off the hook for the obvious misrepresentation. Especially as there is nothing confused in my explanation at all.

I'll interpret this as an inability to defend your confusion of verbiage while substituting an unsupported and unspecified accusation of misrepresentation.

quote:
That's always the police defense: they felt threatened, and the threat justified use of deadly force. Courts and the public are very gradually diminishing their acceptance of this defense.

Since the nature of the attack and the apparent presence of a suicide vest give good reason to perceive a threat - extending to the members of the public the police were extracting from the situation - I think that defence holds up in this case.

Since it was a fake suicide vest and the man was unarmed on the ground, this is just another case of the police claiming they felt threatened when the reality was there was no threat. Figuring out that the suicide vest was fake does present a conundrum, but separating the real from the fake is a very necessary police skill without which there would be many shootings of innocent civilians. It reminds me of the case of Tamir Rice, who was shot by police mere seconds after they arrived for carrying an authentic looking toy rifle that had lost its orange barrel marker indicating a toy.

quote:
It is neither newly-invented nor a misrepresentation. I described this before, though not in a post to you. Read the thread

I have and I see no such message,

Message 368

quote:
If you had "already explained" this then the words "detonator" and "hand" would have appeared in one of your earlier posts, but they don't.

It is a fact that English has many ways of expressing things. For instance the phrase “reaching for the detonator” implies that it was not in his hand.

That would be your Message 356, which makes no comment about the comparative ease of a detonator switch versus a dead man's switch. Care to try again?

quote:
How small can they make switches these days?

You missed the reference to the wiring - also he would have had to be holding it closed even if the switch was too small to be visible.

In all the hubbub you think it likely that little wires disappearing up a sleeve would have been noticed?

quote:
You raised the fact that "he would have had to arm it first" as an objection to the dead man's switch possibility, so I pointed out that one only has to press the switch to activate the bomb.

I raised it to point out that it would make the dead man switch effectively the same as a manual detonator.

I've made the same point. On this we agree.

quote:
No you didn't.

The board software makes it easy to advance forward and backward in a subthread, and it does have a search facility. Prior posts are not a black box.


Message 371:

But he clearly planned to die. Taking the chance that he changed his mind doesn’t seem to be a good risk.

OMG, you've included a link and even an excerpt in your message! Be still my heart!

Unfortunately your excerpt is completely unrelated to the issue about the carnage the suspect could cause. Your excerpt was actually a response to my assertion that we couldn't know what was in the mind of the suspect, and all it does is make more claims about what you think you know about the mind of the suspect. Your ability to read minds, especially after someone is dead, is amazing. Maybe you can tell us why the Los Vegas shooter did it, that one's still a mystery.

quote:
We were talking about your certainty of the mind of the suspect. The question wasn't about the reality of the unlikelihood of him escaping. It was about your certainty about what the suspect believed was possible, because what he believed possible would govern his decision making about what actions to take.

I think we can be certain that he was aware that he was in the ground, surrounded by armed police.

You think that while fighting off a pile-on of passersby that he would have noticed police arriving? It's certainly possible but nothing near a certainty, not even close.

quote:
When there are many possible ways something could play out, i.e., many possibilities, of course they're not all consistent with one another. We mustn't become stuck upon one scenario based upon what actually played out but must keep in mind the variety of ways things could have played out.

Disingenuous. The issue is the evaluation of the vest as a threat, given the information the officers had. That should remain constant unless you can give a good reason why it might not. It should not change drastically depending on the argument you wish to make.

I've already said several times that we don't know the police were aware of the vest. It is part of the narrative that has been made public, but no video shows the vest being visible before police shoot him. There is a poor quality image I posted earlier of the deceased suspect possibly lying in what is possibly a pool of his own blood with two silver bands around his torso that could be anything, including duct tape. Here's the image again:

I’ll also point out that merely coming up with unlikely possibilities that happen to favour your view does nothing to advance the discussion.

Declaring possibilities unlikely is one way of ignoring them, but you might be missing that one must also take into account the potential consequences of any possibility. If someone said to you, "If you don't take this pill you have a .01% chance of getting a cold," you probably wouldn't take the pill. But if someone instead said, "If you don't take this pill you have a .01% chance of dying," you'd definitely take the pill. The potential consequences matter. A lot. But probability and statistics like this are not natural to the human mind. It's why most people fear shark attacks more than lightning strikes.

quote:
The YouTube video is a sequence of shorter videos of the event concatenated together. I can't know what you're looking at unless you tell me the point in time in the video that you're looking at. Here's the video again, it would be appreciated if you could tell me the time in the video I should look at

20-23 seconds in.

So you're saying that you could tell the gun was pointed at the suspect's head at between 20-23 seconds.s Here's the video queued up to just that point. Please explain how you can tell where he's aiming, especially given the movement of suspect. Put it in pause mode and advance frame by frame by hitting ".", then explain how your stance makes sense:

Note that Tangle confirmed in Message 378 that the Met’s firearms doctrine calls for a headshot.

Wow, two links in one message. Again, step through that video one frame at a time starting at 20 seconds and tell me where you think you see something resembling a suicide vest being visible to police.

quote:
How does it undermine the point?

Underline, not undermine,

Ah, okay, sorry. So you're saying that a fake suicide vest gives you insights into the mind of the suspect, and a real vest even more so. I'm not following you. Fake versus real suicide vests seem to lead down completely different realms of possibilities. A fake vest would lead you to consider scenarios where he wants to threaten or cause fear and panic or make people run away or make people leave him alone. A real vest would lead you to consider scenarios where he wants to kill people and/or doesn't want to be captured alive and so forth.

quote:
This repeats the same error. If you don't know the mind of the suspect, you also can't know if he changed it

I didn’t claim to know.

You did claim to know. You repeatedly keep claiming to know the mind of the suspect with statements like, "But he clearly planned to die," etc.

Whether he did or not is irrelevant because we can’t know - and nor could the armed police on the scene.

Yes, I agree, that's what I've been arguing all along.

quote:
I could agree that they seem less likely, not "far less likely," but even "far less likely" is not the same as "can be ignored" given the catastrophic consequences of being wrong.

I’ve seen no reason to think that my evaluation is wrong.

If you do say so yourself.

But even if I am...

Oh, heaven forbid, you can't think you'd ever be wrong. Where would that lead? Humility, perhaps? Can't have that.

- given the catastrophic consequences of being wrong - either way - it would be insane to go with the choice most likely to be wrong. Yet here you are...

You're operating with incomplete information.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by PaulK, posted 12-06-2019 1:12 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by PaulK, posted 12-07-2019 2:50 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 6089
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 407 of 539 (868124)
12-07-2019 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by Percy
12-07-2019 9:28 AM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
I think the pushback my views on this incident are receiving are a reflection of the degree to which the culture of guns has affected everyone. It is so pervasive that it has shifted the entire debate rightward.

Perhaps, but Occam's Razor might ring true in these instances. Its probably more likely that your current detractors share an ideology on the subject as a whole more closely to your own than, say, mine. Just because they may not agree with you in this one instance doesn't mean they don't vigorously agree with your overall premise.

There's been no diminishment in the number of situations where the public believes police were justified in using lethal force.

Each case has to be judged on its own merits and circumstances without the luxury of hindsight. I recently watched a video of a deputy who was completely out of control, inappropriately used deadly force, misses the intended target completely twice (from 3 feet away), and strikes the subject's mother instead. My take on that specific event was that she used inappropriate force, she should not be a cop, and should serve whatever time in prison because of it. You are responsible for every round that leaves the barrel of your gun. What I would not agree with is that it is representative of why all police should be stripped of their weapons.

I'm not playing a political game in this thread by carefully choosing cases that best support my views. I'm taking on all unjustifiable (in my view) police shootings without regard to how difficult making the case will be. This one is, on the surface, a tough one. It's the obvious execution style of the killing that makes this incident worth taking on.

An execution is a person who is constrained, does not pose any kind of threat at the moment, and is deliberately being killed for a punitive reason. I think if your argument is against the death penalty, you and I would probably share the same view. I interpreted this event as the police responding to a rapidly evolving situation where milliseconds matter. You have to remember they ran up to the civilians and the subject and didn't kill anyone... until the moment they saw the hoax bomb. They observed a threat. Knowing that all it takes is fractions of a second to detonate a bomb, they reacted and, in my estimation, appropriately. I think it would be a mischaracterization to call it an execution.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Percy, posted 12-07-2019 9:28 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by Percy, posted 12-11-2019 2:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2148
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 408 of 539 (868127)
12-07-2019 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by Percy
12-07-2019 9:13 AM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
So does a guy trying to make it into comedy on open mic night by doing his terrorist routine. As he walks past the bars on the way to his gig an unrelated skirmish breaks out, someone screams "suicide vest," he's attacked and attempts to defend himself, he's lying on the ground and passersby are being pulled off him while policemen point their guns, and the next thing you know he's dead.

natural selection at work.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Percy, posted 12-07-2019 9:13 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16548
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 409 of 539 (868137)
12-07-2019 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by Percy
12-07-2019 11:59 AM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
The only sensible response - in line with the objectives and guidelines of this forum - is this: Message 726

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Percy, posted 12-07-2019 11:59 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19855
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 410 of 539 (868225)
12-09-2019 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by Hyroglyphx
12-06-2019 3:41 PM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
Hyroglyphx writes:

I said I was done with you in Message 339, and as long as you continue with your "argumentation through misrepresentation" I'm still done with you.

Are you done with me on this thread or done with me period? I can always leave the forum if my presence is not welcome. Just say the word and I'll fall on my sword.

I can't be sure if this is true, but sometimes it seems like you confuse Percy with Admin. I'm just Percy. I have no moderator power, especially in threads where I'm a participant. I can't keep completely separate the two personas, and as Percy I probably reference Forum Guidelines issues more than your average member, but I have no enforcement powers. My opinion about whether you should leave the forum (which you should't, in my opinion) carries no more weight than any other non-admin.

Before that happens, perhaps you can tell me what I'm saying that's so different from what everyone else is. If I'm arguing through misrepresentation then isn't everyone else? Thus far their arguments seem very rational and reasonable.

The forum is approaching it's 19th anniversary, and if I've learned anything in those 19 years it's that you can't explain to people what they're doing wrong. People do what they do and post what they post because they believe it right and true. But their believing this doesn't make them right. It isn't uncommon for people to have gross misperceptions of reality, as attested to by the several conspiracy theory aficionados here.

One of us must be wrong. Either you're determined to misrepresent what I say and to argue against straw men (though that's clearly not how you see it), or I don't see the wrongness in what I'm saying and so don't recognize my own ideas when they're echoed back to me by others.

Arguing for the former view is that Theodoric also saw you as playing the misrepresentation game, and we both became fed up with it at about the same time.

How did this happen that someone trying hard to get things right can get them so wrong while still believing he's right and being bewildered by the responses he's getting? I don't know. Your avatar still makes no sense to me - it clearly states you're anti-alt-right while your posts echo many of their talking points.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-06-2019 3:41 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-09-2019 3:23 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19855
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 411 of 539 (868231)
12-09-2019 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by Hyroglyphx
12-06-2019 4:02 PM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
Hyroglypx writes:

They should have ordered the suspect to remain on the ground as the passersby were removed from on top of him. When the last passerby was pulled away then any attempt by the suspect to rise would justify shooting him.

How would his standing or lying alter whether or not a bomb would detonate?

It wouldn't. Only a few people were close by and in danger from a possible explosive device. Once the last passerby was removed you don't want the suspect running toward a crowd or a bus.

In the leg. I of course don't buy the argument that every police use of their weapon must be a kill shot.

I don't know how it works in the UK, but I imagine that the rationale is similar if not exact to US methodology -- that the only reason to ever fire your weapon is only if there is a deadly force situation. So if you shot with the intent to maim where there is no justifiable reason to assume a deadly force situation, you're committing a crime. That is what less lethal options are available for.

That's a significant part of the problem in a nutshell, that given police training if they decide to shoot that it can only be to kill. It's a binary decision dependent upon whether in their judgment lethal force is required.

But the real world isn't binary. It's analog, and that means there's a continuum ranging from "clearly no lethal force is required" all the way up to "clearly lethal force is required." Where does one place the point beyond which one is close enough to the upper end of the range to use lethal force? How does one accurate assess that point? I think everyone would agree that that's a judgment call, but the evidence clearly suggests that possessing a gun makes people choose a lower threshold.

And if they can hit a head, the brainstem in fact as suggested in the description of Operation Kratos tactics, then they can hit a leg.

In any event, based upon the way these officers were moving and shot placement...

I have the same question for you as I've had for PaulK. What video and timestamp are you looking at that tells you anything about shot placement?

As I've said earlier, had the police done nothing substantial and it ended up being a real vest packed with explosives, many more people surely would have been killed. And then the police are placed in a situation where they had the ability to mitigate lives lost and failed to respond appropriately.

"Nothing substantial" is kind of vague, but we're probably in agreement that doing "nothing substantial" was not appropriate.

From a purely utilitarian perspective, most would agree that the lesser of evils was acted upon that day.

Yes, I know. I've seen no indication in the news of anyone questioning whether killing the suspect was necessary. It seems to be just me.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-06-2019 4:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19855
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 412 of 539 (868236)
12-09-2019 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by PaulK
12-06-2019 4:17 PM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
PaulK writes:

I note that you avoid quoting the section of Tangle’s post that is most relevant to this case.

In extreme situations, the policy recommends that covert police officers fire on suspected suicide attackers without warning, aiming multiple shots at the brain stem to minimise the risk of detonation of a bomb.

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?

I have asked time and again for evidence or testimony of where the suspect was actually shot. It's been insisted many multiple times that he must have been shot in the head, that in fact there's video showing that he was shot in the head, and that he was shot there because he was wearing what appeared to be a suicide vest. There has been no response to my repeated requests for evidence the suspect was shot in the head.

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.

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 London Bridge terrorist bled to death after being 'repeatedly shot' by police:

quote:
London Bridge terrorist Usman Khan bled to death from "multiple gunshot wounds to the chest and abdomen" after his murderous rampage, an inquest has heard.

The convicted terrorist was repeatedly shot in the chest and stomach by a police marksman, the Old Bailey was told.


I don't consider this definitive because it's only a single report, but it's the only report we have so far. I will continue to take no firm position on where the suspect was shot until the evidence is definitive, but I will also continue to question the judgment of those who claim they know where the suspect was shot.

But I'll still do a "what if." What if the police didn't think the suspect was wearing a suicide vest or thought he was only wearing a fake one or thought that it was only a suicide belt that was easy to avoid hitting. The suspect was already disarmed and lying on the ground. Why was it necessary to kill him?

I know the suspect had already served time in prison for terrorist related activities, but the police didn't know that at the time. I know the police knew that he had attacked people with knives, but they didn't know that it was two fatally, and in fact one of them didn't die until after the suspect was killed.

Police arrest dangerous murderous people all the time. It's why many murderers are in prisons instead in cemeteries. Why not this one?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by PaulK, posted 12-06-2019 4:17 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by Tangle, posted 12-09-2019 11:44 AM Percy has responded
 Message 414 by PaulK, posted 12-09-2019 12:03 PM Percy has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7910
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 413 of 539 (868239)
12-09-2019 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 412 by Percy
12-09-2019 11:24 AM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
Percy writes:

Police arrest dangerous murderous people all the time. It's why many murderers are in prisons instead in cemeteries. Why not this one?

Because it's policy and training to use lethal force in a terrorist situation where it is known that the perpetrator is trying to do as much damage as possible with no regard to his own life.

That's the way the evidence falls - after studying many suicide bomber incidents in Israel and on home territory shooting them dead was found to cause the least loss of life.

I have no idea where the terrorist was shot but there will be an inquest and an internal review, and maybe we'll find out. But I doubt it because nobody here cares. You won't find many, if any, here trying to second-guess the police shooting that terrorist.

If he was shot in the chest, the learning point would be about why not the head, not why not the leg or arm or whatever.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Percy, posted 12-09-2019 11:24 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Percy, posted 12-11-2019 2:19 PM Tangle has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16548
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 414 of 539 (868244)
12-09-2019 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by Percy
12-09-2019 11:24 AM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
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.

quote:
I have asked time and again for evidence or testimony of where the suspect was actually shot. It's been insisted many multiple times that he must have been shot in the head, that in fact there's video showing that he was shot in the head, and that he was shot there because he was wearing what appeared to be a suicide vest. There has been no response to my repeated requests for evidence the suspect was 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.

On the other hand you presented no evidence at all for him being shot in the body, until this post.

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. The audio has a civilian asking if the attacker was going to set off a bomb, which may refer to the belt.

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.

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 London Bridge terrorist bled to death after being 'repeatedly shot' by police:

That would be disturbing if it turned out to be true.

quote:
I know the suspect had already served time in prison for terrorist related activities, but the police didn't know that at the time. I know the police knew that he had attacked people with knives, but they didn't know that it was two fatally, and in fact one of them didn't die until after the suspect was killed.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Percy, posted 12-09-2019 11:24 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by Percy, posted 12-11-2019 6:44 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19855
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 415 of 539 (868252)
12-09-2019 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by PaulK
12-07-2019 2:45 AM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
PaulK writes:

quote:
PaulK writes:

If he had a detonator in his hand and if the police officer standing right over it couldn’t tell how he was holding it you might have a point.

If you knew the suspect's hands were visible while passersby were atop him then you might have a point.


No. That’s just nuts. If they can’t see his hands they can’t confuse a deadman switch in his hand with a manual detonator in his hand.

More importantly, they can't even tell if either type of switch even exists.

quote:
I can tell you think an argument was made where the point about a detonator was necessary but missing, but without more information I can't tell what argument you're referring to.

No, we’re talking about my argument that a manual detonator was more likely than a deadman switch because the belt hadn’t detonated.

Oh, okay, I understand now that "the argument" and "it" referred to an argument you had made, not me. I was assuming the opposite. Could you please remake your point if you think it important?

quote:
Sure, if that were the whole story, but 2019 London Bridge stabbing - Wikipedia says the knives were taped to his wrists. Was that done in a way that left his hands free? We don't know at this time.

It would be pretty hard to use a knife while clenching a switch in his hand.

With the knives taped to his wrists, why can't his hands be in fists?

Further I think you're thinking of a switch like this, and it doesn't have to be this kind of switch:

quote:
You said, "The suicide vest wasn’t noticed until they were pulling people off him." Where in the video do you think you're able to tell that they noticed a suicide vest? It's not in the first 20 seconds, and you say yourself that the people piled on top obscured the view.

And I supported my point by indicating that there were people in the way so that they couldn’t see the belt. That is visible in the video, just as I said. I don’t think you can tell exactly when they notice and never claimed that it could be seen.

You can't say you never claimed the vest could be seen because you said exactly that in Message 367: "The suicide vest wasn’t noticed until they were pulling people off him." Unless I'm parsing this wrong, this says that they saw the vest after pulling off the passersby.

quote:
The video also doesn't show any shots being fired, and if you start watching at time 30 seconds you'll see a video taken from a bus that shows the policemen at some distance from the suspect, who, if you watch carefully, is still moving. Some part of him bobs up above the divider fencing just as the camera is panning away.

I don’t see how that helps your point

That information was in support of the point that there is much that we do not know. What we have is fragmentary video from different cameras with different perspectives that might not even be arranged in the correct time order, and we have the words of police spokespeople.

Given the information that the suspect was killed with multiple body shots (which should not yet be accepted as gospel, but it's from London Bridge terrorist bled to death after being 'repeatedly shot' by police), it's possible he was first shot in the chest and/or body at close range, then the police retreated because they saw what looked like a suicide belt (not a vest since they were willing to take body shots), then when he continued moving (as shown in the video on the bus) they took more body shots from greater range.

I earlier argued that the bomb squad should have been called to help deal with the suspect, and some reports say that bomb squad vehicles were observed at the site (e.g., A total of three dead after "terror" incident at London Bridge).

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by PaulK, posted 12-07-2019 2:45 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by PaulK, posted 12-09-2019 1:26 PM Percy has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16548
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 416 of 539 (868259)
12-09-2019 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by Percy
12-09-2019 1:05 PM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
quote:
More importantly, they can't even tell if either type of switch even exists.

No, the important thing is it leaves no reason to think he’s holding a live deadman switch.

If you were genuinely concerned with the risk of the bomb being set off that would decide it. But you aren’t you’re just determines to say that the shooting was wrong, no matter what.

quote:
Oh, okay, I understand now that "the argument" and "it" referred to an argument you had made, not me. I was assuming the opposite. Could you please remake your point if you think it important?

Your whole idea about the police confusing a manual detonator with a deadman switch was a daft idea you made up.

quote:
With the knives taped to his wrists, why can't his hands be in fists?

Because that would make it harder to use the knives.

quote:
You can't say you never claimed the vest could be seen because you said exactly that in Message 367: "The suicide vest wasn’t noticed until they were pulling people off him." Unless I'm parsing this wrong, this says that they saw the vest after pulling off the passersby

The point was that it wasn’t noticed earlier. Maybe they didn’t notice it until later but I think they would have noticed it by the time they pulled the last man off since it’s visible in a photo.

quote:
That information was in support of the point that there is much that we do not know. What we have is fragmentary video from different cameras with different perspectives that might not even be arranged in the correct time order, and we have the words of police spokespeople.

Which does not help your argument in the slightest. And, by the way, it is obvious that the videos are not a sequence.

quote:
Given the information that the suspect was killed with multiple body shots (which should not yet be accepted as gospel, but it's from London Bridge terrorist bled to death after being 'repeatedly shot' by police), it's possible he was first shot in the chest and/or body at close range, then the police retreated because they saw what looked like a suicide belt (not a vest since they were willing to take body shots), then when he continued moving (as shown in the video on the bus) they took more body shots from greater range

In that situation the first shot seems questionable, but once the risk of an explosion is apparent, it is not clearly unreasonable to incapacitate him.

quote:
I earlier argued that the bomb squad should have been called to help deal with the suspect, and some reports say that bomb squad vehicles were observed at the site (e.g., A total of three dead after "terror" incident at London Bridge).

Of course they would be. If there was a chance he had a real bomb it had to be checked out, and disarmed if found.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Percy, posted 12-09-2019 1:05 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by Percy, posted 12-11-2019 7:03 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19855
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 417 of 539 (868261)
12-09-2019 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Tangle
12-07-2019 9:57 AM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
Tangle writes:

Percy writes:

This one is, on the surface, a tough one.


It really isn't.

I meant that this is a tough one, on the surface, to question the propriety of the police shooting.

It's the obvious execution style of the killing that makes this incident worth taking on.

Again, you're equating the police's action in this incident with taking someone to a field and shooting them in the back of the head.

Yeah, pretty much.

The guy was deliberately shot dead because he was a terrorist that had already killed two people and was attempting to kill more.

When the suspect was killed the police only knew that he had attacked people with knives. They didn't know if anyone had been killed, or that the suspect had served time in prison for terrorist related activities.

The police were following a thought-through policy and their training for dealing with a suicide bomber.

And I'm questioning that policy. All policies, no matter how well thought through, evolve and change over time in reaction to how well they work in reality and to changing circumstances and improved insights.

If they acted outside the law, we'll hear about it. But I'm betting anything we won't.

I never got into the legality of the killing of the suspect. I'm simply saying that the currently available information leads me to think it was possibly wrong and unnecessary.

And, btw, I'm speaking as someone anti-gun and anti-capital punishment.

So am I. I have already commented a couple times on how the stubbornness and determination of gun nuts pushing for gun rights has, in my opinion, pushed people's views to the right such that they're more likely to consider a given shooting as right and proper.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Tangle, posted 12-07-2019 9:57 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by Tangle, posted 12-09-2019 3:21 PM Percy has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7910
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 418 of 539 (868265)
12-09-2019 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by Percy
12-09-2019 2:18 PM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
Percy writes:

Yeah, pretty much.

Thats's a real problem. The situations are not in anyway comparable, but it does speak to your starting point.

When the suspect was killed the police only knew that he had attacked people with knives. They didn't know if anyone had been killed, or that the suspect had served time in prison for terrorist related activities.

Let's be honest neither of us know what they knew. But, we do know that they are armed police, that they have been called to an emergency terrorist incident and it's not the first time.

And I'm questioning that policy. All policies, no matter how well thought through, evolve and change over time in reaction to how well they work in reality and to changing circumstances and improved insights.

Yup, but the policies in place at the time are the ones used. And so far I'm not hearing anything better.

I never got into the legality of the killing of the suspect. I'm simply saying that the currently available information leads me to think it was possibly wrong and unnecessary.

You have no feasible way of assessing that. It was a terrorist incident in progress, they acted to policy and training. If they didn't they're in trouble, that's the way it works.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Percy, posted 12-09-2019 2:18 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by Percy, posted 12-10-2019 5:13 PM Tangle has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 6089
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 419 of 539 (868266)
12-09-2019 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by Percy
12-09-2019 9:17 AM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
My opinion about whether you should leave the forum (which you should't, in my opinion) carries no more weight than any other non-admin.

Very well, thank you for clarifying.

One of us must be wrong.

Not necessarily, because most of this boils down to perception and opinion. If we were discussing facts, like about the legality of the shooting, then I would agree someone is right, someone is wrong, or both could potentially be correct in some instances and incorrect on another. You and I disagreeing on the current topic, whether it was morally right or wrong to shoot this person, is a matter of opinion no different than me trying to convince you that chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla... which it clearly does.

Either you're determined to misrepresent what I say and to argue against straw men (though that's clearly not how you see it), or I don't see the wrongness in what I'm saying and so don't recognize my own ideas when they're echoed back to me by others.

Sometimes we, and I include myself in this indictment, have a tendency to try to read between the lines. Sometimes it could be helpful to examine what a person's ulterior motives might be but sometimes we make false accusations by imagining motives that may not actually exist.

Arguing for the former view is that Theodoric also saw you as playing the misrepresentation game, and we both became fed up with it at about the same time.

Your interpretation is your interpretation. I can only attempt to make persuasive argumentation -- you either accept or reject my rationale. But maybe our communications at times get lost in the weeds. I'll accept any failing on my part that could have alleviated any miscommunication and try to better articulate a position going forward.

How did this happen that someone trying hard to get things right can get them so wrong while still believing he's right and being bewildered by the responses he's getting? I don't know. Your avatar still makes no sense to me - it clearly states you're anti-alt-right while your posts echo many of their talking points.

The avatar change is a bit of irony, a bit of trolling but also a bit of extending an olive branch by saying "Fuck the Alt-Right, I'm not one of them and I'm willing to go this far to prove it." By way of comparison between you and I, sure, I might as well be Hitler incarnate. I certainly agree that some of my positions are far more right-leaning than that of yours -- this thread being demonstrable to that fact.

But I maintain that while there may be some overlap between myself and the Alt-Right the core of what they stand for is at odds with my own ideology. Richard Spencer and I may both believe that liberal media attempts to drive a narrative versus objectively reporting facts and so he and I may agree on that point. But Richard Spencer is an actual Nazi sympathizer that wants to bring back segregation! I mean, c'mon, give me some fucking credit here! I don't want that kind of poisonous ideology in my country any more than you do.

I think part of the problem is the Us vs Them mentality that is tightening more and more by the day with its ever-increasing constraints of pigeonholing. Its to the point where you have to buy into ALL of the talking points to now be on Team Conservative or Team Liberal otherwise you risk being excommunicated for not being a true believer. And if you dare go against the grain then you are either a de facto Triggered Tree Hugging Hippie or a Nazi Stormtrooper Antisemite. There's no more nuance to ideological positions... Life is complicated. Positions are complicated, especially as to how people arrive at their conclusions on any given position. Its not fair to brandish someone with a Scarlet Letter for holding a single position that may be aligned with someone who we don't agree with. Hitler apparently loved dogs... oh, you love dogs too.? Fucking fascist!!! We shouldn't have to give up our agency or individuality in trying to defend a socio-political position. Believing that kneeling during the National Anthem is more patriotic than standing doesn't make you an ANTIFA supporting anarchist. It just means that you have a compelling reason for it.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Percy, posted 12-09-2019 9:17 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Percy, posted 12-11-2019 7:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1798
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 420 of 539 (868303)
12-10-2019 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by Hyroglyphx
12-06-2019 4:02 PM


Re: Unarmed Police Does Work
I don't know how it works in the UK, but I imagine that the rationale is similar if not exact to US methodology -- that the only reason to ever fire your weapon is only if there is a deadly force situation.

That is, indeed, official policy. British police are authorised to fire only "when absolutely necessary in self-defence or in defence of another when there is an immediate risk to life from unlawful violence".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-06-2019 4:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020