G
gnjsdad
Guest
Ani Ibi:
Neither do I. I said it was a tragic accident.
- Status
K
Karin
Guest
Grotto-
So what you are saying is if you are here illegally we can shoot you?? Or is it only if you are illegal and run suspiciously from someone who is legal that you can be shot? I am trying to see your point of view…help me out here, please.
M
MikeWM
Guest
It’s possible. It seems more likely to me that after the events of the last few weeks, with nerves on edge, he saw some guys - in plain-clothes remember - shouting and waving some guns around, and thought it a good idea in the heat of the moment to get as far away as possible.
Either way, being an illegal immigrant isn’t a crime punishable by summary execution, thank goodness.
And in any event, it looks again like he was working legally anyway.
Mike
G
gnjsdad
Guest
vern humphrey:
If this is how you repay those who thank you for your contributions, that speaks to your utter lack of civility and charity. I withdraw my thanks to you.
What’s worse than being an “apologist for terrorism”, which I am not, is an enabler of terrorism, as are those who support the policies of Bush and Blair.
If this is how you repay those who thank you for your contributions, that speaks to your utter lack of civility and charity. I withdraw my thanks to you.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Are you suggesting that supporters of the Bush Blair policies are enablers of terrorism?
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
Everyone remember the rules, especially: Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.
For your reference, the guidelines are at:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2
Everyone remember the rules, especially: Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.
For your reference, the guidelines are at:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
gilliam started a thread about the shooting of a Catholic priest in Brazil. Rio actually. It seems that paramilitary shootings are not uncommon in that country. If that is the culture which this young man came from, then it can explain why he ran away from plainsclothes officers. We know that police stopped him several times before and he spoke with them; he did not run on those occasions. One can only assume that it was because they were uniformed.
Anyway, the point is that, in a multicultural society such as Britain, especially London, people are likely to have all sorts of unpredictable responses to police particularly plainsclothes officers. Given this, I think it is contingent that the authorities publicize some guidelines.
Anyway, the point is that, in a multicultural society such as Britain, especially London, people are likely to have all sorts of unpredictable responses to police particularly plainsclothes officers. Given this, I think it is contingent that the authorities publicize some guidelines.
G
gnjsdad
Guest
I apologize to those who may have been offended by my intemperate remark. It was my purely emotional reaction to being slandered by a particular poster after having thanked that same poster for their contribution to this thread.
C
Chris_Jacobsen
Guest
Shoot first, think later. And police are suppose to make us feel more secure?
C
Christus_Rex
Guest
I think it was right to shoot if they GENUINELY thought he was going to blow himself up.
HOWEVER, what I dont understand is that THEY WERE FOLLOWING HIM AND LET HIM GET ON A BUS!!! I just don’t get that! They thought he was a suicide bomber, so they followed him, let him get on the bus, and only when he got off the bus did they try and talk to him (that was when he ran and got shot)! I mean, for goodness sake, he could have blown up the bus!
Michael
HOWEVER, what I dont understand is that THEY WERE FOLLOWING HIM AND LET HIM GET ON A BUS!!! I just don’t get that! They thought he was a suicide bomber, so they followed him, let him get on the bus, and only when he got off the bus did they try and talk to him (that was when he ran and got shot)! I mean, for goodness sake, he could have blown up the bus!
Michael
G
grotto
Guest
Dear Karin - no I am not saying we should shoot anyone who is in our country illegally! I am saying that given a scenario of crazy, bombing terrorists loose in an environment of innocent people necessitates aggressive protection. Thats why we have police and military forces and why we have the right to bear arms! You must not accept totally what you hear from media sources. When the media reported that he was being followed for approximately three miles (think - how would the media know that? When they reported that he was a legal, innocent resident - how did they KNOW that?). The media jumps right out with inflammatory remarks, not factual.
Think of other situations that could result in similar action.
What if he was tackled and cracked his head open against a brick wall? A great price to pay for protecting an illegal resident status and the same result occurs.
Its not the police and legal authority that have caused a dangerous environment, its the terrorists. Common sense will tell you that running from the police or military while terrorist attacks are happening is not sensible. You might like to feel that a person should not be shot unless all facts are analyzed and justified.
You might like to feel that nobody should be shot at any time or that injury and death should never happen. Well, if so, you are in for a big shock! Should a drunk driver be shot if driving the wrong way on a busy street, will not stop, and is heading for a parade?
So, no, I am not saying drunk drivers should be shot but may be under certain circumstances. See what I mean?
Think of other situations that could result in similar action.
What if he was tackled and cracked his head open against a brick wall? A great price to pay for protecting an illegal resident status and the same result occurs.
Its not the police and legal authority that have caused a dangerous environment, its the terrorists. Common sense will tell you that running from the police or military while terrorist attacks are happening is not sensible. You might like to feel that a person should not be shot unless all facts are analyzed and justified.
You might like to feel that nobody should be shot at any time or that injury and death should never happen. Well, if so, you are in for a big shock! Should a drunk driver be shot if driving the wrong way on a busy street, will not stop, and is heading for a parade?
So, no, I am not saying drunk drivers should be shot but may be under certain circumstances. See what I mean?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Christus Rex:
Yeah, this is a bit ambiguous for me too. I know that the minute he veered into the Tube station, then the decision was to detain him. Trouble is, he did not cooperate in being detained. He ran. Then they chased him.I think it was right to shoot if they GENUINELY thought he was going to blow himself up.
HOWEVER, what I dont understand is that THEY WERE FOLLOWING HIM AND LET HIM GET ON A BUS!!! I just don’t get that! They thought he was a suicide bomber, so they followed him, let him get on the bus, and only when he got off the bus did they try and talk to him (that was when he ran and got shot)! I mean, for goodness sake, he could have blown up the bus!
Michael
K
Karin
Guest
Grotto-
**Thank you for the clarification on your comments. **
M
MikeWM
Guest
Well, this happened in the UK. We don’t have the right to bear arms
As far as I know, the police themselves were quite forthcoming with the details of the case, which is how we know he was followed for three miles. Ditto legal, and innocent. The legal part is still indeterminate though, it seems.
Well, mostly. A guy called Harry Stanley was still shot for carrying a table leg (that the police jumped to the conclusion it was a shotgun) well before any terrorist attacks (in 1999).
Agreed - if it is clear the people are police. A lot of plain-clothes people shouting and waving guns is unclear - and indeed at first thought you may well think it more likely to be terrorists or something than the police.
I don’t think most people are arguing that shooting him would have been the right thing to do if it was the only way to stop him setting off a bomb. But this just seems to have been a succession of blunders that ended in escalation and panic.
Mike
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
There were no blunders until he ran. Running was the blunder. Up until the point in time when he ran, the police were only observing him.
He could have run because his experience (in Brazil) of plainsclothes people waving guns were that they were paramilitary thugs. This plainsclothes business has to be remedied. How are people to know plainsclothes officers are legitimate?
M
MikeWM
Guest
Ani Ibi:
Firstly, if they were convinced he was a suicide bomber, they shouldn’t have let him on the bus. Or, they should have made sure that they could easily restrain him at the tube station - there were enough of them there, by all accounts. Letting him get on the bus, and then letting him run onto the tube, both seem like blunders to me.
There doesn’t seem to be an easy answer to this problem.
Mike
I meant by the police, not him
Firstly, if they were convinced he was a suicide bomber, they shouldn’t have let him on the bus. Or, they should have made sure that they could easily restrain him at the tube station - there were enough of them there, by all accounts. Letting him get on the bus, and then letting him run onto the tube, both seem like blunders to me.
Well, indeed. Perhaps there is a way, but I don’t think we are aware of it. Of course, it can’t be by specific words or similar, because nothing will stop the thugs/muggers/etc. saying and doing the same.
There doesn’t seem to be an easy answer to this problem.
Mike
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
We can’t say for sure that they were convinced that he was a suicide bomber before he started running. Running tipped the police against him. Whatever reason he had for running, he should not have run.I meant by the police, not him
Firstly, if they were convinced he was a suicide bomber, they shouldn’t have let him on the bus. Or, they should have made sure that they could easily restrain him at the tube station - there were enough of them there, by all accounts. Letting him get on the bus, and then letting him run onto the tube, both seem like blunders to me.
Just because the solution may not be easily arrived at, does not mean the authorities can throw up their hands and give up. If they do not publicize protocol, then there will be more meaningless deaths among innocent Brits. It if can be said that there was a blunder on the part of the police, then I contend it is the blunder of head office, not the officers at the scene.
M
MikeWM
Guest
Ani Ibi:
There’s also the fact that if he was a suicide bomber and he thought the police had caught him, why run if he could blow himself up on the busy station concourse? Although I suppose in general suicide bombers aren’t the most logical-thinking of people.
MIke
Agreed, from the point of view of the Police, in the heat of the moment. Objectively, there all manner of reasons for his having run at that point, only onw of which would be if he was a suicide bomber.
There’s also the fact that if he was a suicide bomber and he thought the police had caught him, why run if he could blow himself up on the busy station concourse? Although I suppose in general suicide bombers aren’t the most logical-thinking of people.
Oh, agreed, and agreed. They were probably told to trail him in the hope he would lead them to accomplices. But I think this was probably misguided - if he was wearing his scary big coat, he was no doubt doing so when he got on the bus, too.
MIke
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Yeah, this is ambiguous for me too. Very culturally specific behaviour. One would not expect someone like me to wear a quilted jacket on a hot summer day. However, I note that people from very hot countries frequently wear jackets or sweaters on hot summer days.
There are big holes in protocol and that is a leadership problem. Problems need solutions. I have not noticed any chatter in UK about this aspect at all. I even wrote BBC, but my letter was not published. They seem to prefer the purely emotive letters, it seems.
L
Lance
Guest
The following should frighten Brits more than the shooting of someone who ran from the police and also acted in other suspicious ways.
Using standard survey research methods, the YouGov polling firm interviewed 526 Muslim adults across Great Britain online during July 15-22, weighing the data to reflect the British Muslim population’s age, gender, and countries of origin. The survey found that 1 percent of them, or “about 16,000 individuals, declare themselves willing, possibly even eager, to embrace violence” in the effort to bring an end to “decadent and immoral” Western society.
Should their ranks really be so thick, such a huge number of potential terrorists could cause an unprecedented security crisis for Britain, with all the attendant economic, social, political, and cultural ramifications one can imagine.
The YouGov survey contains many other statistics that should interest, if not shock, Britons and other Westerners.
Muslims who see the 7/7 bombing attacks in London as justified on balance: 6 percent.
Who feel sympathy for the “feelings and motives” of those who carried out the 7/7 attacks: 24 percent.
Understand “why some people behave in that way”: 56 percent.
Disagree with Tony Blair’s description of the ideology of the London bombers as “perverted and poisonous”: 26 percent.
Feel not loyal towards Britain: 16 percent.
Agree that “Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end”: 32 percent willing to use non-violent means and (as noted above) 1 percent willing to use violence “if necessary.” Just 56 percent of Muslims agree with the statement that “Western society may not be perfect but Muslims should live with it and not seek to bring it to an end.”
Agree that “British political leaders don’t mean it when they talk about equality. They regard the lives of white British people as more valuable than the lives of British Muslims”: 52 percent.
Dismiss political party leaders as insincere when saying “they respect Islam and want to co-operate with Britain’s Muslim communities”: 50 percent.
Doubt that anyone charged with and tried for the 7/7 attacks would receive a fair trial: 44 percent.
Would not inform on a Muslim religious leader “trying to ‘radicalise’ young Muslims by preaching hatred against the West”: 10 percent.
Do not think people have a duty to go to the police if they “see something in the community that makes them feel suspicious”: 14 percent.
Believe other Muslims would be reluctant to go to the police “about anything they see that makes them suspicious”: 41 percent.
Would inform the police if they believed that knew about the possible planning of a terrorist attack: 73 percent. (In this case, the Daily Telegraph did not make available the negative percentage.)
Another opinion poll, this one commissioned by Sky News and carried out by Communicate Research (which interviewed 462 UK-based Muslims by telephone) found similar results:
Muslims who agree with what the London suicide bombers did: 2 percent.
Who believe there is a Koranic justification for the bombings: 5 percent.
Disagree with the statement that “Muslim clerics who preach violence against the West are out of touch with mainstream Muslim opinion”: 46 percent.
Think of themselves as Muslim first and British second: 46 percent. Another 42 percent do not differentiate between the identities. A mere 12 percent see themselves as British first and Muslim second.
Using standard survey research methods, the YouGov polling firm interviewed 526 Muslim adults across Great Britain online during July 15-22, weighing the data to reflect the British Muslim population’s age, gender, and countries of origin. The survey found that 1 percent of them, or “about 16,000 individuals, declare themselves willing, possibly even eager, to embrace violence” in the effort to bring an end to “decadent and immoral” Western society.
Should their ranks really be so thick, such a huge number of potential terrorists could cause an unprecedented security crisis for Britain, with all the attendant economic, social, political, and cultural ramifications one can imagine.
The YouGov survey contains many other statistics that should interest, if not shock, Britons and other Westerners.
Muslims who see the 7/7 bombing attacks in London as justified on balance: 6 percent.
Who feel sympathy for the “feelings and motives” of those who carried out the 7/7 attacks: 24 percent.
Understand “why some people behave in that way”: 56 percent.
Disagree with Tony Blair’s description of the ideology of the London bombers as “perverted and poisonous”: 26 percent.
Feel not loyal towards Britain: 16 percent.
Agree that “Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end”: 32 percent willing to use non-violent means and (as noted above) 1 percent willing to use violence “if necessary.” Just 56 percent of Muslims agree with the statement that “Western society may not be perfect but Muslims should live with it and not seek to bring it to an end.”
Agree that “British political leaders don’t mean it when they talk about equality. They regard the lives of white British people as more valuable than the lives of British Muslims”: 52 percent.
Dismiss political party leaders as insincere when saying “they respect Islam and want to co-operate with Britain’s Muslim communities”: 50 percent.
Doubt that anyone charged with and tried for the 7/7 attacks would receive a fair trial: 44 percent.
Would not inform on a Muslim religious leader “trying to ‘radicalise’ young Muslims by preaching hatred against the West”: 10 percent.
Do not think people have a duty to go to the police if they “see something in the community that makes them feel suspicious”: 14 percent.
Believe other Muslims would be reluctant to go to the police “about anything they see that makes them suspicious”: 41 percent.
Would inform the police if they believed that knew about the possible planning of a terrorist attack: 73 percent. (In this case, the Daily Telegraph did not make available the negative percentage.)
Another opinion poll, this one commissioned by Sky News and carried out by Communicate Research (which interviewed 462 UK-based Muslims by telephone) found similar results:
Muslims who agree with what the London suicide bombers did: 2 percent.
Who believe there is a Koranic justification for the bombings: 5 percent.
Disagree with the statement that “Muslim clerics who preach violence against the West are out of touch with mainstream Muslim opinion”: 46 percent.
Think of themselves as Muslim first and British second: 46 percent. Another 42 percent do not differentiate between the identities. A mere 12 percent see themselves as British first and Muslim second.
- Status