News Stories

[monir]

Originally Posted by Jinto

Thats a little too easy. I don't know how it is handled in the USA but there are countries where the law enforcing people basically stay with one leg in prison and the other in their grave when it comes to the use of lethal force as a defence.
Time, place and circumstances if you cannot handle them, this profession isn't for you. There is that risk that comes with this kind of profession. No matter how good you are you might have to make a potentially fatal decission where you need to decide in a case of doubt if you just know yourself or take the risk to assume the potential attacker as relatively harmless until proven otherwise which can be a "dead end" if proven otherwise.
Imo the first choice is just about protecting yourself while the latter is about protecting people.
Now if my english was better I could make my point a little bit more refined and precise.

Your english is fine Jinto. I get what you are saying and I think that's how most of the Law Enforcement Agencies work around here. Even if an officer is found clear of any criminal wrong doing or negligence by the department, most of them still have to worry about the civil side of things. Lots and lots of checks and balance are in place. I really didn't want to talk about that NY shooting because having any other views than "groom shot to death, how tragic" makes most of us uncomfortable. The scenario was the police were investigating an erratic shooting that happened earlier in that club which struck residential building and the nearby subway. Fortunately no one was hurt other than property damage. Police were looking for five individual. They spotted a vehicle that matched the description with equal numbers of occupants and attempted to stop it. The vehicle goes to hit the police car while the officers are in there. The vehicle, then, maintains an erratic course and hits a minivan.

We have established the time and circumstance. And now the place. The place is the same area the shooting happened earlier. The place has also seen one of the worst terrorist attack ever. The vehicle was suspicious which just struck a police car and then continued on and struck another.

I can see what might have lead them to make the decision to fire on that vehicle. Everything else is after the fact, about 6-8 hours later. At that moment of time when all those things were transpiring simultaneously, had those officers to make such a decision to take the life of another human being, and it was made less than split second.

Time, place, and circumstances.

So you think, they do/did not take it seriously now and before such incidents? The problem is, when you cannot let your guard down you will (on a long term) be obsessed by paranoia.

To be honest, I don't know. What I do know is that few miles over from the Lakewood slaying, an officer was killed less than a month ago while he was inside his scout car in a drive by shooting. What I also know that in this shooting two officers died while they were sitting down, 3rd one died halfway standing, and the 4th one may have gotten off a round or two before succumbing to the inevitable. Three out of 4 officers couldn't even reach for their gun. There was a diagram too which showed the sitting arrangement for all 4 of them which I can't find right now. It showed the table was inside a cubicle type surrounding. They were completely unaware of what's going on around them until the last second. None of them had a clear visual access to the front door. They didn't even feel that guy coming.

Originally Posted by Vexx

At some point, we'd have to start asking where the "civilized society" went. Police officers already feel isolated and are often out of touch with the law-abiding citizenry (one reason so many end up with interesting prejudices even if they're the same color as the perp o.O ). Isolating them even further just makes it more likely they're going to have trouble telling who's who in a mess.

For example, most rank and file officers strongly support concealed carry for citizens - they consider them the 'back up of last resort' and a deterrent. Its only the association of "police chiefs" (political appointments) that have opposed such a concept and even then only a slim majority. Most police want the public to be able to defend themselves because they know they can't get there instantly. I have 8 relatives in various levels of law enforcement - I get to hear this discussion frequently.

So ... you have to balance that against the ease of idiots, wackjobs, and loonies getting hold of guns. Balancing accessibility to the law-abiding public versus them is very tough.

Sidenote: knowing the model/make of a weapon used in a crime doesn't really tell you a huge amount other than *maybe* a guess at the skill level of the perp. Example: Mac-10s are generally used by idiots (gangs) when they can get them, it tends to shoot everyone but the target. A Glock, otoh, doesn't tell you a thing - they're preferred by police officers for the special safety function and their reliability. Meh.... so forth and blah.

Insightful as ever, Vexx. I agree with the view above. It still doesn't lessen the inadequacy and the frustration and the helplessness of the situation. The thing is officers are nothing more than everyday people who goes out to do their part and then, want to come back safely to their awaiting homes and families. Four of them won't be going anywhere.

[Tiberium Wolf]

Suspect in police killings shot dead

Shot dead in a 1vs1.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Tiberium Wolf

Suspect in police killings shot dead

Shot dead in a 1vs1.

I'd have preferred to hear he was taken alive, especially since they think he wasn't working alone, so we could learn more about why he did it. Though it looks like they arrested someone for driving the get away car according to that article, so if that guy was involved too, they can probably get him to talk.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by monir

The scenario was the police were investigating an erratic shooting that happened earlier in that club which struck residential building and the nearby subway. Fortunately no one was hurt other than property damage. Police were looking for five individual. They spotted a vehicle that matched the description with equal numbers of occupants and attempted to stop it. The vehicle goes to hit the police car while the officers are in there. The vehicle, then, maintains an erratic course and hits a minivan.

We have established the time and circumstance. And now the place. The place is the same area the shooting happened earlier. The place has also seen one of the worst terrorist attack ever. The vehicle was suspicious which just struck a police car and then continued on and struck another.

I can see what might have lead them to make the decision to fire on that vehicle. Everything else is after the fact, about 6-8 hours later. At that moment of time when all those things were transpiring simultaneously, had those officers to make such a decision to take the life of another human being, and it was made less than split second.

Time, place, and circumstances.

But do you think this was professional or was the choice of lethal force really apropriate in this situation (i.e. were the car occupants visibly armed)? And I want to debate that this decission was made in a split second... you need more then that to draw a gun unlock safety and fire aimed shots. At least several seconds. If the police had the driver at gun point already when they were approaching, it might have been a split second decission, but then it is a recless, unprofessional approach to begin with (at least from my POV).

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

How exactly does a failure of some third world Islamic country to give it's people freedom of religion make it right for a first world nation to do the same? Not to mention that most third world Islamic countries still allow religious minorities to practice their faith openly, though sometimes with unofficial oppression by the majority. There might be ways to justify the ban, but saying "well they don't let 'us' practice our religion in their countries" is certainly not one of them. Though I can't really think of any that would either so yeah.

Well, if you see it from the angle of the culture... war is too strong a word. Race? It levels the playing field somewhat.

Personally, I wouldn't have voted for the ban... but vox populi, vox dei. Even our dear rulers, in representative democracy, have the exact same legitimacy as this ban: that of the vote. And if it's a mistake, well, it's their mistake to make.

[WordShaker]

Well, if we're using proverbs, look no further than "the tyranny of the majority." Even though the majority may have wanted it, it's still a breach of basic rights--a vote doesn't always give legitimacy to a decision.

[Cyrus17]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

but vox populi, vox dei. Even our dear rulers, in representative democracy, have the exact same legitimacy as this ban: that of the vote.

Originally Posted by wassupimviet

look no further than "the tyranny of the majority."

You should look a little deeper and shouldn't stop at the "ah, it's the majority" point.

Since 2002 there's propaganda campaign underway in support of US war in Iraq / Afghanistan. This campaign covers Europe too. Integral part of all such campaigns is creation of a "concept of the enemy", and guess who is the enemy this time...

The ban decision is a kind of "side-effect" of this campaign. Blame not the population, but those controlling the media.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Jinto

But do you think this was professional or was the choice of lethal force really apropriate in this situation (i.e. were the car occupants visibly armed)? And I want to debate that this decission was made in a split second... you need more then that to draw a gun unlock safety and fire aimed shots. At least several seconds. If the police had the driver at gun point already when they were approaching, it might have been a split second decission, but then it is a recless, unprofessional approach to begin with (at least from my POV).

The safe action on the Glock is inside the trigger which is released as the trigger is pulled, by then which you are already aiming down the sights and praying that all your shots hit. Besides, most pistols are meant to be fired upon draw but yet have sufficient safeties.

Besides, the officer is already drawing his gun but he isn't going to fire it yet, he only shot when that guy reached into his waist. The "at least twice" means that he fired around 4-5 rounds on quicktime rather than empty the entire magazine into that guy.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The safe action on the Glock is inside the trigger which is released as the trigger is pulled, by then which you are already aiming down the sights and praying that all your shots hit. Besides, most pistols are meant to be fired upon draw but yet have sufficient safeties.

I did not know they were using Glocks (thats off-topic... I wouldn't - the trigger safety is not exactly safe... drawing the pistol fast in certain circumstances can result in accidently pulling the trigger; maybe I am old school or conservative but safety should only be unlocked when the weapon is drawn not before neither by choice nor by accident).

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Besides, the officer is already drawing his gun but he isn't going to fire it yet, he only shot when that guy reached into his waist. The "at least twice" means that he fired around 4-5 rounds on quicktime rather than empty the entire magazine into that guy.

Which makes the decission to use lethal force even worse. There was no weapon visible... this is typical shoot first then ask mentality.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Jinto

I did not know they were using Glocks (thats off-topic... I wouldn't - the trigger safety is not exactly safe... drawing the pistol fast in certain circumstances can result in accidently pulling the trigger; maybe I am old school or conservative but safety should only be unlocked when the weapon is drawn not before neither by choice nor by accident).



Which makes the decission to use lethal force even worse. There was no weapon visible... this is typical shoot first then ask mentality.

why? this saves the taxpayer millions in legal fee in putting this on trial and the death penality phase.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

why? this saves the taxpayer millions in legal fee in putting this on trial and the death penality phase.

It's not the way these things should be handled. Police officers who go around shooting suspects tend to be bad for judicial process. Plus I think Jinto was talking about another case where an innocent man was shot by police, though I could be wrong there.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

It's not the way these things should be handled. Police officers who go around shooting suspects tend to be bad for judicial process. Plus I think Jinto was talking about another case where an innocent man was shot by police, though I could be wrong there.

If a police (man) shot another man. the man must die. highly irrelevant but amusing. this is why there are investigations--those are enough to cover evidences...perhaps.

[Shadow Kira01]

Japan welcomes new U.S. policy on Afghanistan, but denies more aid

‘‘The government welcomes’’ the new policy of sending an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan and starting to withdraw forces in July 2011, Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirofumi Hirano said in a press conference held immediately after Obama’s televised speech.

Japan will ‘‘work closely together with the United States and other countries concerned and will proactively cooperate in the development of Afghanistan,’’ he said.

Japan has already announced that it will extend up to $5 billion in civilian aid to Afghanistan for five years from 2009.

But some members in the government of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama are fretting about the possibility that its closest ally, Washington, would push Japan for more aid.

Obama said his new strategy would cost the U.S. $30 billion this year, while calling on its allies to step up their commitments to the war in Afghanistan.

‘‘It is very likely that the Obama administration will call for additional help from Japan due to concerns that (the war in) Afghanistan would become something like what happened in Vietnam or in Iraq,’’ Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa in a speech in Kanagawa Prefecture.

Hirano denied that the government will increase the planned aid to the country in the wake of Obama’s speech.

‘‘We are now in the process’’ of implementing what has already been announced, Hirano said.

WTO stays focused on 2010 Doha conclusion but Japan, China skeptical

Japan and China said Tuesday that it would be difficult for the 153-member WTO to achieve a successful and balanced conclusion to the eight-year-old trade liberalization talks, which have seen no major progress since last year due to conflicts between developed and developing members over how to cut tariffs and export subsidies in the core areas of agriculture and manufactured goods.

''Honestly, I feel that it is not so easy'' to wrap up the talks successfully, Japanese Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Hirotaka Akamatsu told reporters on the sidelines of a WTO ministerial meeting that began Monday in Geneva.

Chinese Commerce Minister Chen Deming echoed the assessment, saying separately that it remains ''very difficult'' for the 153-member global trade body to complete the talks in 2010, according to Xinhua News Agency.

''It can only be realized through substantive negotiations,'' Chen was quoted as saying in Geneva. Chen said each WTO member must ''show more flexibility'' in advancing negotiations.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Cipher

If a police (man) shot another man. the man must die.

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean there. Are you saying that if a police officer shoots someone who's innocent he, the police officer, should be put to death, or are you claiming the if a police officer shoots someone, the person deserved to die no matter what? Or something else? I'd argue against either of those positions though.

In the former, while the officer is clearly responsible and should lose his job and face jail time, the death penalty is too severe for it. I'd say manslaughter charges would be more appropriate. In the latter, just because someone's a cop does not mean they're Judge Dredd. There's a judicial process for a reason. The cop on the street does not get to decide whether someone's guilty. Of course there are situations where lethal force is required.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by wassupimviet

Well, if we're using proverbs, look no further than "the tyranny of the majority." Even though the majority may have wanted it, it's still a breach of basic rights--a vote doesn't always give legitimacy to a decision.

When a government blocks / not allows the people to vote for something, it's a dictatorship too, even if it's for something stupid. If the people really want to vote for something, I for one think they should be allowed to.

*I* still prefer the swiss' system that allows the people to vote, than having a government choosing for me for a lot of things while showing me the finger. I hate to see that in France we didn't have the right to vote about the new concept of europe. We said No to the european's constitution once, so Sarkozy didn't allow us to vote again. If that's not a dictatorship and imo that's way more serious than a minaret story but apparently no one care while all over europe from what i've heard, almost all "people survey/referendum" were against this europe, but most governments did the same as sarkozy. No vote, or by using a "parliamentary" referendum. Or you can do like the Irish, to not listen to the people by doing a new referendum every 6 months/year till it passes ... Yeah sure.

And about the tyranny of the majority, beside the "basic right" problem, that's how democracy works. You can't please everyone when the people vote. Or as said ealier here on animesuki, we should not have elected Sarkozy as president because near 50% of people didn't vote for him. That's good to criticize the current systems and use the tyranny of majority, but then people should give their plan about a better system that works and doesn't block an entire country because 100% of people that agree on something never happens

[ChainLegacy]

The 'solution' to the tyranny of majority presented in direct democracy is representative democracy. In my eyes, neither are all that good, but I don't at this time have a viable alternative to offer, so it might be a lesser-of-two-evils thing (direct or representative democracy over all the others).

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

In the former, while the officer is clearly responsible and should lose his job and face jail time, the death penalty is too severe for it. I'd say manslaughter charges would be more appropriate.

See, that's why cops think they can get away with killing an innocent person. The worst that can happen to them is they lose their job and go to jail for a certain amount of time. I don't agree with this because cops tend to think that because of their position as law enforcers, they are above the law. That can change from country to country, but nonetheless, it doesn't give them a license to kill. Would the family of the person who died be happy if the killer was set free after doing time? Would you? I know I wouldn't. The killer needs to know what it's like to be on the receiving end of the bullet, in which case, a life sentence doesn't cut it either. That being said, the death sentence is, imho, appropriate.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Cyrus17

You should look a little deeper and shouldn't stop at the "ah, it's the majority" point.

Since 2002 there's propaganda campaign underway in support of US war in Iraq / Afghanistan. This campaign covers Europe too. Integral part of all such campaigns is creation of a "concept of the enemy", and guess who is the enemy this time...

The ban decision is a kind of "side-effect" of this campaign. Blame not the population, but those controlling the media.

No, I'm pretty much going to blame the population. If "blame" is the right word. While I'd prefer urbanism decision such as building permits for minarets be kept at a local level, I don't care that much about it. Yes, it's unfair that they're singled out like that. But whatever. Let's call it a message that Muslims are welcome in Switzerland... but not that welcome. And let it go at that.

You see, I believe in democracy. And the corollary of that is that I hold everyone responsible for his or her vote.

Of course, it doesn't mean I think Joe Six-Pack the Plumber is particularly wise. Frankly, between plain idiocy, widespread apathy, and time constraints making it impossible to study issues properly, it's a miracle we haven't voted ourselves off a cliff yet. I just believe that if someone's going to exert tyranny, I'd rather it'd be the majority than some select minority decided on shady criteria, which is pretty much the only alternative, from what I can tell.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean there. Are you saying that if a police officer shoots someone who's innocent he, the police officer, should be put to death, or are you claiming the if a police officer shoots someone, the person deserved to die no matter what? Or something else? I'd argue against either of those positions though.

In the former, while the officer is clearly responsible and should lose his job and face jail time, the death penalty is too severe for it. I'd say manslaughter charges would be more appropriate. In the latter, just because someone's a cop does not mean they're Judge Dredd. There's a judicial process for a reason. The cop on the street does not get to decide whether someone's guilty. Of course there are situations where lethal force is required.

I think he means that if a cop is going to shoot someone, it'll be less trouble if he makes sure the shootee isn't around to complain afterward.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

The 'solution' to the tyranny of majority presented in direct democracy is representative democracy. In my eyes, neither are all that good, but I don't at this time have a viable alternative to offer, so it might be a lesser-of-two-evils thing (direct or representative democracy over all the others).

Yes, then instead of the population being dicks, their representatives can be dicks. And line their pockets. That's so much better.

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

See, that's why cops think they can get away with killing an innocent person. The worst that can happen to them is they lose their job and go to jail for a certain amount of time. I don't agree with this because cops tend to think that because of their position as law enforcers, they are above the law. That can change from country to country, but nonetheless, it doesn't give them a license to kill. Would the family of the person who died be happy if the killer was set free after doing time? Would you? I know I wouldn't. The killer needs to know what it's like to be on the receiving end of the bullet, in which case, a life sentence doesn't cut it either. That being said, the death sentence is, imho, appropriate.

Everyone thinks they're above the law, or near enough. For example, who on this forum doesn't believe he or she is above the laws concerning Intellectual Property in general, and the downloading of it in particular?

Policemen do a hard job. They try to keep the peace, only to be assaulted by thugs. And then, a significant part of the population takes the side of the thugs. Paints them as the victims.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Everyone thinks they're above the law, or near enough. For example, who on this forum doesn't believe he or she is above the laws concerning Intellectual Property in general, and the downloading of it in particular?

Policemen do a hard job. They try to keep the peace, only to be assaulted by thugs. And then, a significant part of the population takes the side of the thugs. Paints them as the victims.

Right, so the policeman who shot a 15 year old kid in Greece last year just because he was smoking was allowed?

Being a cop doesn't mean the cop has a license to kill. They also have to respect the laws and set an example for the people who're being made to follow them. If cops don't do it, then who will?

EDIT: you don't have to tell me that there's a chance the newspapers changed the story to maybe hide the fact that the kid was assaulting the cop. That's definitely not true because police brutality is common in Greece. All my friends from there can back me up on this too.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Right, so the policeman who shot a 15 year old kid in Greece last year just because he was smoking was allowed?

Being a cop doesn't mean the cop has a license to kill. They also have to respect the laws and set an example for the people who're being made to follow them. If cops don't do it, then who will?

That's not what Anh means I think. Your example is extreme. But as you can see, it happened in France that in a train station, policemen were chasing a young man who did something bad. Would you believe me if I say that some random people tried to block the policemen?

There is a growing feeling among people about "not trusting the policemen" here in France for example. Sure some do mistakes and given their job, when they do, it can take enormous proportion, but they are just humans, and not all of them are corrupted. And sometimes, people throw rocks at them for no reason than being policemen, or take the defense of thugs for no good reason.