I have a lot of faith in our criminal justice system - it's man made so it has flaws but it's pretty much the best there is.
I think that a criminal justice system that makes it well nigh impossible to prosecute police who commit murder in the course of duty is typical, maybe even, as you say, the best there is, but it certainly isn't the best we can do.
But I don't know that zero police convictions in the UK is indicative of anything because most of your police are unarmed, so I'm guessing that there's a very tiny sample size, that incidents involving armed police units must be a tiny percentage of all incidents.
If we ask our police to defend us from fundamentalist lunatics that want to kill as many people as they can, as quickly as they can, we have to live with them taking actions like this and support them when they do - until it's proven wrong.
At a minimum, the publicly available evidence at least calls the propriety into question.
Inevitably the outcomes are going to be mixed bag. The best you can hope for is a set of policies that minimize the total number of deaths. Also inevitably, some of those killed will be innocent people at the hands of police. Perfection isn't possible. But if it's okay to shoot unarmed wounded people rolling around on the ground in pain because you think they're a terrorist and a murderer and a suicide bomber, sometimes what you think is going to be wrong.
I don't understand why you continue repeating these untrue statements.
And I don't understand why you can't see that this was a terrorist that had knifed two people - killing both of them - was wearing a (fake) suicide vest and attempting to kill as many more people as he could on the same bridge as one of his compatriots had killed 8 people only 2 years earlier.
This isn't an accurate summary of anything I've said, and I don't understand why you keep doing this.
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.
Oh, really? Only one had died so far, well that changes everything. Ffs. Even if they didn't know anyone had died, please show how this matters.
You said that the police were justified in killing the suspect because he was a terrorist who had already killed two people, but at the time they made the decision to kill the suspect the police did not know he was a terrorist or that he had killed anyone. So since they didn't know these things, what were their reasons for deciding to kill him?
Sorry, I'm too angry to read the rest of your armchair crap.
The emotionality's been apparent from the lack of attention to known facts.
This was a terrorist attack in central London - like several before - that by the intervention of some heroic civilians and by very prompt actions by the police saved a lot of lives.
Civilian intervention saved lives. The armed police just showed up at the end, pulled off the passersby, and shot the suspect dead.
I'll wait for the inquest to find the facts.
Sure, but that's no excuse for castigating those noting the questions the videos do manage to raise.
he attacked multiple people and was wearing a suicide vest, he was an threat to the lives and safety of others.
These objections are not new, have in fact been repeated many times and continue to be repeated despite having been rebutted and debunked many times. The suspect was unarmed, defenseless, and at the bottom of a pile of passersby. And the police could not possibly have believed he was wearing a suicide vest else they would not have shot him in the chest and abdomen.
Possibly there are good reasons for shooting the suspect, but no one's offering any. People have instead been repeating the same bad reasons over and over.
One good reason I can think of might be that once the last passersby had been pulled off the suspect that the police could not be sure he was unarmed, that he might have perhaps been carrying more knives somewhere on his person, so when he attempted to rise from the ground, and possibly disobeying orders the police may have given to stay down, they were forced to shoot him.
The videos also raise questions, but the objections to the interpretations I've raised have been so many and so superficial that I haven't had a chance to mention them, but let me mention one now. In one video the police are positioned at very close range, maybe seven feet or so. Did they shoot him once the last passerby was clear? You can't tell from the portion of the video that's been made public. But in another shot the police are aiming at the suspect from about a hundred feet away. Why did they move away? Was it because they suspected a suicide belt? That would make sense, but then why did they fire into his chest and abdomen?
Even for sharpshooters, firing at a distance of a hundred feet straight across a bridge in the middle of a metropolitan area seems very ill advised, so a possible explanation is that all the shots were fired at close range into the chest and abdomen, then police noticed the suicide belt, stopped firing, and moved a safe distance away waiting for the bomb unit. The suspect rolled around on the ground wounded and in pain and bled out before the bomb squad got to him.
And the police could not possibly have believed he was wearing a suicide vest else they would not have shot him in the chest and abdomen.
or they could have believed that he was and shot anyways.
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
An off duty Secret Service agent walking home in Brooklyn shot and killed a leashed dog. At first he claimed the dog was not leashed, but the leash is clearly visible in the photo. So the Secret Service changed its story. The dog was on a leash but the leash was not being held by anyone. I await the change in this story, too.
Firing a gun on a New York City street at a dog? Really? This agent should not be carrying a gun. I don’t know what charges he’s vulnerable to, but I hope illegal discharge of a weapon and animal cruelty at a minimum. He should also lose his job. He’s obviously in the wrong profession anyway if he can be spooked by a dog.
Suspect charged in Waseca shooting; officer remains in critical condition
Dated Jan 8, 2020.
quote:According to the BCA, officers responded to reports of a suspicious man with a flashlight in the backyard of a home in a Waseca neighborhood. When they arrived at the scene, they encountered Janovsky, who had an active warrant against him. Officials said the officers did not know about Janovsky’s warrant at the time.
BCA Superintendent Drew Evans told reporters at a news conference Tuesday that officers shot Janovsky after he shot Matson.
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Forgot to include source link.
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable." - John Kenneth Galbraith
It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. - Paul Krugman (as stolen from Chiroptera's signature)
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes" - Ronald Reagan (1984)
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
Police, after seeing the weapon, retreated downstairs. Marquez then deliberately walks downstairs and points the firearm directly at the officers, thus leaving them with no other option.
The video does not appear to show that "she points the firearm directly at the officers." I've queued the video up to the exact right place. You can advance frame-at-a-time using the "." character:
The gun was fake.
The police saw a fake gun, didn't detect that it was fake, and lost sight of the fact that this was a wellness check. They fired twelve rounds at an unarmed person. Did they miss the first eleven times? As we've seen so often, these supposedly highly trained officers were scared out of their wits and just kept firing and firing.
The DA's office determined that officers had properly followed procedures, but I'm sure there's a lot of interpretation involved. I'm confident words like "reasonable" appear many times in those procedures.
If no police had been called, only wellness and health professions, Marquez would still be alive and nobody would have been hurt.
The family is suing Pasadena for $20 million. The city doesn't have a prayer and will settle out of court for an undisclosed sum, probably around $3-$4 million, much more if they properly consider what a jury would conclude after seeing that video frame by frame (that's how I viewed the critical portions), and even more if the city fears a jury could be convinced that Marquez might have been able to work through her problems and return to work at some point.
I'm still waiting for the results of the London Bridge incident investigation. Recent accounts (e.g., London Bridge: What we know) still include a narrative in which the video and image evidence is contradictory. When they find a narrative in which the evidence doesn't contradict itself then I'll begin to believe they're approaching the truth.
With the death of George Floyd, not with a gun but with a knee for eight minutes and forty-six seconds until he expired, this thread seems the best fit for this video.
When a government does not want reported what it is doing they silence the press. Here are a number of examples:
Police are behaving carelessly, indiscriminately, wantonly, egregiously against protesters, not noticing or caring whether any action is required. Now reporters holding microphones and cameras and notebooks have become targets alongside those who merely stand or march in solidarity.
This is not a few bad apples. This is systemic racism and institutional violence. Americans must protest in all ways possible the turning of our country into a police state that targets all those who aren't blessed by accidents of birth with the mark of privilege: whiteness.