Home Politics & Debate
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.

more innocent people murdered by police

And this time its a mentally ill person who is gunned down in cold blood by the police on the pretext of "terrorism".

Story.

Not really much to say anymore, is there?

Nothing can be done about this shocking disgrace, and that's the worst thing of it.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    while i agree with kermy on this one,

    i wonder what the bogstandard response would have been, if this guy had ran, was let free, and exploded the plane?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be fair Kermy, if he legs it off a plane shouting 'I've got a bomb' they don't really have time to stop him, search him, search the plane before letting him go do they. Granted they shouldn't have killed him - tranquilisers or a tazer maybe - but they have to act in the interests of everyone on board and, what with it being America, they shot him.

    And how were they to know that he was mentally ill? As I said, they didn't really have time to stop him and give him a full psycho analysis. In those situations, they have to act fast just in case the guy does have a bomb and is hell bent on blowing stuff up. I guess they made the right decision to take him down but perhaps they could have done so in a non-lethal manner.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be fair Kermy, if he legs it off a plane shouting 'I've got a bomb' they don't really have time to stop him, search him, search the plane before letting him go do they. Granted they shouldn't have killed him - tranquilisers or a tazer maybe - but they have to act in the interests of everyone on board and, what with it being America, they shot him.

    And how were they to know that he was mentally ill? As I said, they didn't really have time to stop him and give him a full psycho analysis. In those situations, they have to act fast just in case the guy does have a bomb and is hell bent on blowing stuff up. I guess they made the right decision to take him down but perhaps they could have done so in a non-lethal manner.


    when people use the argument they stopping him setting it off, theres one flaw he might have a pressure release trigger ie letting go of a button or something

    and if well if he set it off outside the aircraft theres probably less casulty than if he set it off on the plane so it makes no sense
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    tranquilisers or a tazer maybe

    Neither of which act instantly...
    I guess they made the right decision to take him down but perhaps they could have done so in a non-lethal manner.

    Easier typed than done, and ground which has been covered before.

    I can't really fault the "law enforcement" in this case because I don't have enough facts which would make me worried that they had acted presumptiously. I certainly won't draw any comparison with our Tube Murderers because in that case there was "intelligence" failings and time to react which wasn't used.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's the nonchalance with which the announcement was made that I found the most repugnant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Indeed Kentish, par for the course apparently...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But when eye witness accounts say that there was no need to shoot, I'm inclined to believe them.

    I'm not specifically condemning the law enforcement in this case, but it does illustrate just how dangerous an accepted "shoot to kill" policy really is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't get what the problem is. Its tragic yes but they guy claimed he had a bomb, in another article of the story I think it said he ran for the door. He was demanding to be let off the plane while they were up in the air, could've opened the door or anything.

    I have no problem with them shooting him. Rather that then have a guy with a real bomb on board and they not do owt and he blows the plane up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/airplane.gunshot/

    No one else heard him say "bomb", just those that shot him. :rolleyes:

    Again.
    However, no other witness has publicly concurred with that account. Only one passenger recalled Alpizar saying, "I've got to get off, I've got to get off," CNN's Kathleen Koch reported.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well studies have showed eye witness reports to be inaccurate.....

    just coz its the government doesn't make it the big bad.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The air marshal is also an eyewitness.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And he said he claimed to have a bomb.

    I guess its all down to who you belive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, the collection of people who have no interest in the matter either way, or the guy with the smoking gun and headless body to explain away......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    or

    the countless of peole that have never had an quick, immediate action in their lives, not trained for situations, flooded with panaic, or distratced by the in flight movie, music headphones, sleeping, missing half the action and not realising what had happend until its over against the highly trained air marshall who knows how to react in risk circumstances.

    ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd go for the neutals, myself.

    I don't trust armed police, de menezes was just another in a long line of fuck ups resulting in innocent loss of life.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the neutrals. Well I am only giving the other side of the argument.

    the le menze incident was tragic. But you still have to accpet there is a risk out there and armed police officers do serve a purpose.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ---
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    no one want to believe anything about the USA nowdays except they are run by facists, stealing oil and killing poor innocent people under racial guile, bombing themselves as an esxcuse to put forward their agenda, pumbing the world with posion and invading poor little countries and diposing poor little dicators that did no harm to no one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    what's a facist?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why would a US air marshal who is clearly sane shoot some one who is clearly insane, in front of witnesses for no apparent reason other then he wanted to get off a plane?

    I am not denying that the man was behaving erratically, only that there is no evidence for the marshalls assertion that he was taking about a bomb. The marshall probably did genuinely think the man presented a threat. He's not a mental health worker, he's a type of policeman (qualifications include being relatively tall and doing relatively badly in exams, plus the willingness to use violence to get your own way) and prone to make this kind of mistake.

    I am sure it's a genuine mistake. i.e. that erratic behaviour from swarthy man = terrorist. The "bomb" stuff is probably fabrcated, given no one else heard it.
    Or could it be that he was doing his job, protecting innocents?

    A policeman's job is to enforce the will of those who make the law using vioence or threats of violence. They do not now, never have and never will protect anybody from anything. If it gets really bad, they will come and clean up afterwards and that's about it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Much as I hate to agree with Born Slippy he does have a point.
    doing relatively badly in exams,

    Even if that was a qualification for policing (which it isn't) I'd rather that exams are one of the least qualifications for being allowed to handle weapons. I know PhDs who i wouldn't allow to handle a water pistol, never mind anything which shoots real bullets.
Sign In or Register to comment.