If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
When the police believe you are a terroristr armed with a bomb.
Somethng I agree with as long as they are 'sure' that the person is a risk to the public.
Unfortunately in this case the police head shed fucked up and made the wrong decision on poor intelligence.
The cop with the gun has a duty to know why hs is putting 7 bullets into someones skull and 1 into his shoulder. He took the final decision and he is culpable for that.
If his superior officer ordered him to put his hand into a fire, would he do it?
And EVERY victim is going to be a brother - a son - a cousin - an uncle - a friend - a colleague.
There is nothing to be gained from taking emotion out of the equation.
Next time a cop pumps 7 bullets into someones skull - he NEEDS to KNOW that he faces a long stretch in jail if his overreaction is not justified.
That way - he'll make sure that the intelligence is convincing........
IT's quite a simple one. It was someone's brother, ruthlessly wiped out.
No it's not. It's called empathy.
And even if it was, that's how it should be. Emotion- empathy- should be affecting your opinion, otherwise it is possible to condone any atrocity.
If he was acting on orders and within his remit then I'd suggest that the copper should not have charges brought.
But if there is the slightest hint that he was not specifically ordered to kill this man then he should be tried, and convicted, of manslaughter.
FTP: I'll have to do some research about the orders of superior officers, but my initial reaction is that Clegg isn't the best case to use to argue a point, as I believe it was overturned in the House of Lords.
It must concern you somwhat that you and a moron are broadly in agrement on something.
As to Clegg - that isn't my claim, it's John Gardner's - and I suspect he would have checked to see it had been overturned.
I note that the CPS are still citing the case.
If hed not killed him and he turned out to be a bomber (as they thought the liklihood was due to the evidence they could see at the time) then more people would have been at risk.
It was an ethical dilemma. No right or wrong answer.
The guy was just doing his job.
I wouldnt choose that job, I wouldnt choose to be a solidier either, but sometimes in those jobs, you have to make decsions, and sometimes its gonna be the wrong decision.
And you'd say exactly the same thing if it was Mr. Brite lying on that platform with 8 bullets in him, would you?
Jean Charles de Menezes was a threat to no one.
At any point the policeman could have quit, resigned, walked off or even just argued. He could have disobeyed orders and just held the guy down. He could have got another job, but the dead guy isn't going to get another head.
He didn't.
Therefore he voluntarily, of his own free will, decided to murder another human being.
He is guilty of murder.
All this crap about following orders, and "could have been a suicide bomber" sickens me.
No, he didn't. In order to keep his job, he had to make a snap decision. He chose a regular paycheck over someone elses life. Fuck him.
No, no, no. You can order someone all the way along the line, they are free to obey or not. He chose to obey. He is guilty of murder. Like my Mum used to say "if little Johnny said jump in a lake, would you do it?"
Put the full weight of responsibility onto those that pull the trigger, not those who give "orders". Soon, the orders won't be followed.
The thing is, it's was his job to follow orders. In the real world, people have jobs, and in a lot of jobs there is a commitment there too, and they have to follow orders. I understand what you're saying about not following orders, we have free will, but that doesn't mean we are free. I know this is an extreme analogy, but if your mother needed to get to hospital urgently, you have the free will to leave her and let her die, or take her to hospital. It's a choice, but you do what you have to do - you do your duty, so to speak.
Without being able to read peoples minds, you can never tell 100%. They had to make a split second decision based on the evidence/intelligence they had at the time . They got it wrong this time. Its sad. Theyve apologised.
No, they don't. Was there a forcefield around him, making him pull the trigger? Was there some evil genius bending his mind using cosmic rays?
No.
So he decided to do his job, which killed someone. So, he chose to kill someone. So he is a murderer.
Yes, it does. You can do what the fuck you want whenever you want, providing you are physically capable, of course. Why do you think you are not free? Mad.
You lost me. It's still your choice, and the consequences of your choice are your responsibility. Just like if you decide to decapitate a stranger, you decide to do it, it's your responsibility.
So, now you're blaming Mendezes. Its his fault he got shot, because he ran away from men with guns?
Mr. Mendezes had no reason to believe that he was under suspicion as a "muslim" and a "suicide bomber" did he?
It isn't the first thing a Brazilian would have thought before Friday, is it?
I am shocked to see you being part of the mind set that is leading us into a police state - where running away from armed plain clothes men is an invitation to be shot.
In South Africa the cops used to let suspects go, so that they could shoot them in the back.
I left there because it disguisted me - and now people are being scared into welcoming the same kind of extremism that Blair says he is fighting.
Gunning down innocent men is a crime - and must remain a crime.
We would get lots of people freed from useless tasks and ready to do something constructive. Would be nice.
What I think you are failing to recognise is that every single time an "order" is given, the person who follows it is making a decision whether to follow along or not. Every time.
You have free will, like it or not. So does everyone else, like it or not.
Leaving aside the fact that a policeman is just a guy in a costume, what right do you think he has to shoot anyone else?
It might be a choice, but it's a choice that every 999,999 times out a million you'd make the same choice, because to the officer at that time, that was his... I don't know what to call it. Say you've got a doctor, giving intensive heart surgery to someone. What's to stop him from just stopping mid way leaving the guy to die on the table and hanging up his robes for a beer?
Nothing, no invisible force fields, but something almost programmed into is. It's not infallible, but duty etc. is instilled in us. Whether through socialisation and programming or due to us being a species that lives in groups so cooperation and submission / following duty is paramount, I don't know. But I assure you, this feeling does exist. Sometimes even if you have two choices you can only choose one.
I dont want innocent people to be killed - of COURSE I dont.
I dont think this was murder though.
The intention was to kill someone to save others - which is not something I agree with, but I can see that the intention was honourable.
As I said - perfect example of a real ethical dilemma.
There is no right answer.
If it was me, I wouldnt have shot the guy.
If it was me, I wouldnt have gone into that job in the first place.
Im glad it wasnt me who had to make that decision.
Hmm, so you just abdicate responsibility for the decision and let someone else make it on your behalf?
You and I wouldn't have shot - and if nobody had shot him, nobody would have died.
I would have to be absolutely ceratin I was saving lives before I pulled a trigger - not based on skin colour, dess sense and a refusal to obey "orders"
There is no excuse for killing an innocent man - UNLESS YOU ARE A TERRORIST
He certainly is accountable, as I would be if I made a decision that meant someone died. This is a bit different though, he was given responsibility and authority to act in a way that none of us are given authority to do. I wouldnt be able to handle that responsibility (even if I could shoot straight)
I dont envy the man that had to make that decision. Theyre not dealing with normal circumstances here.
Before 7/7 noone would have got shot for running away from the police into a tube station wearing a heavy jacket midsummer with wires coming out of them. After 7/7 other circumstances came to light, and in the cold light of day its VERY easy to sit here and say "well I wouldnt have done it, so nor should he". You dont have his job though.
I dont agree with capital punishment, too easy to make mistakes even when youve got time to weigh everything up. This is even harder. Split second judgement of risk. I dont think I agree with the shoot to kill thing, but that doesnt mean I think this guy is a murderer.
Tough shit. He chose to murder someone - he's responsible.
Only the knowledge that actions have consequences. When consequences are artificially removed - as in allowing people to murder because they have a job title - then you are asking for trouble. You are completely correct though, there is nothing stopping him.
I don't have that "programming", so no comment. I suspect you are reffering to when the took you from your family and imprisoned you, to "teach" you how to behave.
Me either. I am conscious, aware and awake. This sounds like you are not.
I don't have that feeling so I will take your word for it that you feel it. Unless I am uinder direct threat I do what I like.
It's still his responsibility, it's still his choice, whether he recognises it or not. He's still a murderer.
The "terrorists" use the exact same argument to blow buses up.
Exacty. He chose, he alone is responsible for his own actions.
Well I disagree with capital punishment when the person has actually commited the crime - I definitley don't agree with it on someone who MIGHT commit a crime.
What if it had a been a suicide bomber? Ok then ... what if at the last minute he decided that despite his beliefs he couldn't go through with killing all those people and decided not to do it?
No its not sad ... its a tragedy and an irreversible one at that. Apologising does not make up for the death of an innocent man! The fact that London is under threat from bomb attacks is horrible but that is not an excuse for a police state!
I'm sorry but I can't ever see a situation where I am going to agree that it is for the common good that an innoccent man can be killed by the very people that are supposed to be protecting him!
I really can't believe how blase so many people seem to be about this - the man was fucking innoccent and he's been killed by the police! Their first action with this shoot to kill policy was the killing of an innoccent man! So how many more people have to be shot by the police by mistake before its worth cancelling this policy? When their head count is greater than the terrorists?
How can people denounce the evils of men who kill innoccents and then turn around and excuse this away like this?!?!
We should not be scared of our own police! Their is no excuse for killing!
Okay.
Not at all. They would think I will go and see what's happening here, but I had better keep in the back of my mind that if I fuck up, I am just as liable for poking my nose in other people's business and getting it wrong as anyone else.
It's called personal responsibility, something the "police" are keen to press on others but avoid themselves.
No, they don't. You cannot give up your ability to make decisions and have free will, it's a constant fact of your existence. It's not possible.
There's nothing too join, it's a fiction designed to hide murders, thefts and lies. you can get three men in a room and call them anything you like, they are still three entirely seperate men.
No, we really shouldn't. That muddies the waters and removes accountability totally. Somehow shooting someone dead becomes ok if the political, fictional label "policeman" gets attached. "Bollocks!" says I.
The level of the copper's culpability has to be determined - obviously whatever orders he received will have to come into it ... if he was given a direct order to shoot then I don't think he should take the responsibility. Whoever gave the order should.
However if this is not the case (and I'm sure it will be more convoluted than this) then he has to take a certain amount of responsibility for his actions. At the end of the day he killed a man who had done nothing.
If a soldier in a war kills an innoccent civillian you expect him to face consequences for those actions and the same goes for this officer!
nazi doliders had jobs to do, its means fuck all you pull the trigger to kill thr people, and the person who told you is a conspirator
the amount 1940s rhetoric being used is scary
how many lives are worth more than 1 innocent life?
2, 5, 10, 100, a million?
Do you mean how many innocent lives are worth more than 1 innocent life?
well how many in that case?
id rather risk the 2 lives than kill the innocent one
How many people do you have to be associated with for murder to become okay?
What coloured cloth do you have to wear for murder to be acceptable?