Discussion:
Fake Corbyn tweet
Add Reply
The Todal
2019-11-30 01:11:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Quite funny, if you assume it was intended as a joke rather than to
influence the election.

@jeremycorbyn: A man was murdered by British police in Broad daylight
Pancho
2019-11-30 10:33:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Quite funny, if you assume it was intended as a joke rather than to
influence the election.
@jeremycorbyn:  A man was murdered by British police in Broad daylight
Yep, I'm sure the family of Jean Paul De Menezes see Cressida Dick in
charge hear the joke and piss themselves laughing.

What did the police actually do?
tim...
2019-11-30 14:12:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
Quite funny, if you assume it was intended as a joke rather than to
influence the election.
@jeremycorbyn: A man was murdered by British police in Broad daylight
Yep, I'm sure the family of Jean Paul De Menezes see Cressida Dick in
charge hear the joke and piss themselves laughing.
What did the police actually do?
shot a man in cold blood
Pancho
2019-11-30 14:38:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
Quite funny, if you assume it was intended as a joke rather than to
influence the election.
@jeremycorbyn:  A man was murdered by British police in Broad daylight
Yep, I'm sure the family of Jean Paul De Menezes see Cressida Dick in
charge hear the joke and piss themselves laughing.
What did the police actually do?
shot a man in cold blood
Cold blood is good surely?

Much better than wound up like crystal meth addicts, which was
Cressida's previous managerial influence.

Experience tells me to be very sceptical of the official police version
of events and I wouldn't be surprised if the "fake explosive vest"
diminishes with further scrutiny, but at least this time they do seem to
have picked a suitable candidate for execution.
R. Mark Clayton
2019-12-02 18:08:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by tim...
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
Quite funny, if you assume it was intended as a joke rather than to
influence the election.
@jeremycorbyn:  A man was murdered by British police in Broad daylight
Yep, I'm sure the family of Jean Paul De Menezes see Cressida Dick in
charge hear the joke and piss themselves laughing.
What did the police actually do?
shot a man in cold blood
Cold blood is good surely?
Much better than wound up like crystal meth addicts, which was
Cressida's previous managerial influence.
Experience tells me to be very skeptical of the official police version
of events and I wouldn't be surprised if the "fake explosive vest"
diminishes with further scrutiny, but at least this time they do seem to
have picked a suitable candidate for execution.
He had just murdered two people and wounded others and had had two knives. Execution would have been his fate in the UK until ~1964. Self defence to do so.

The police dragged those restraining him off and then hot him from a few meters away so if his bomb was real and he or shooting him set it off they would probably survive.
G***@skata.co.uk
2019-11-30 14:21:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Quite funny, if you assume it was intended as a joke rather than to
influence the election.
@jeremycorbyn: A man was murdered by British police in Broad daylight
Not fake at all. Your 'anti-semitic'®™ friend Corbyn is a known
terrorist sympathiser.
Peeler
2019-11-30 14:25:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 06:21:47 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by G***@skata.co.uk
Post by The Todal
Quite funny, if you assume it was intended as a joke rather than to
influence the election.
@jeremycorbyn: A man was murdered by British police in Broad daylight
Not fake at all. Your 'anti-semitic'®™ friend Corbyn is a known
terrorist sympathiser.
Says, of course, the retarded filthy Usenet troll who is know to be a
clinically insane pervert, rabid racist and psychopath!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID: <Og0VE.1298131$***@usenetxs.com>
Yellow
2019-11-30 17:07:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Quite funny, if you assume it was intended as a joke rather than to
influence the election.
@jeremycorbyn: A man was murdered by British police in Broad daylight
I don't know the half of, and I most certainly was not there, but I am
still a bit puzzled that they killed him "because he was wearing a
suicide vest" because would that be /more/ likely to make it go off?

Don't these things traditionally have dead-man-switches or have I just
been watching too much TV?

But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public would be
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down, and would
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.

I for one, while not mourning this man's loss for one second, am
extremely uncomfortable with the notion that the police can exercise
summery execution. But on the other side of the coin, I am also acutely
aware that the police have to make a snap decision.

As the saying goes.... it is complicated.
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2019-11-30 21:05:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by The Todal
Quite funny, if you assume it was intended as a joke rather than to
influence the election.
@jeremycorbyn: A man was murdered by British police in Broad daylight
I don't know the half of, and I most certainly was not there, but I am
still a bit puzzled that they killed him "because he was wearing a
suicide vest" because would that be /more/ likely to make it go off?
Don't these things traditionally have dead-man-switches or have I just
been watching too much TV?
But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public would be
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down, and would
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.
I for one, while not mourning this man's loss for one second, am
extremely uncomfortable with the notion that the police can exercise
summery execution. But on the other side of the coin, I am also acutely
aware that the police have to make a snap decision.
As the saying goes.... it is complicated.
The point to remember is that nothing they tell you can be relied upon.
--
Evremonde
Sadick Khan
2019-11-30 22:15:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by The Todal
Quite funny, if you assume it was intended as a joke rather than to
influence the election.
@jeremycorbyn: A man was murdered by British police in Broad daylight
I don't know the half of, and I most certainly was not there, but I am
still a bit puzzled that they killed him "because he was wearing a
suicide vest" because would that be /more/ likely to make it go off?
Don't these things traditionally have dead-man-switches or have I just
been watching too much TV?
A kaboom vest with a dead man's switch wouldn't be much use if you're
planning to go on a stabbing rampage...you need both hands for that!
Peeler
2019-11-30 23:08:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 14:15:59 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Sadick Khan
Post by Yellow
Don't these things traditionally have dead-man-switches or have I just
been watching too much TV?
A kaboom vest with a dead man's switch wouldn't be much use if you're
planning to go on a stabbing rampage...you need both hands for that!
Do you, blithering psychopathic dreckserb?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
Jeff
2019-12-01 08:36:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
I don't know the half of, and I most certainly was not there, but I am
still a bit puzzled that they killed him "because he was wearing a
suicide vest" because would that be /more/ likely to make it go off?
Don't these things traditionally have dead-man-switches or have I just
been watching too much TV?
No, you have been watching too much tv.

Also it is difficult to hold a knife in each hand whilst keeping a dead
man's switch closed.

Jeff
The Todal
2019-12-01 11:42:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by The Todal
Quite funny, if you assume it was intended as a joke rather than to
influence the election.
@jeremycorbyn: A man was murdered by British police in Broad daylight
I don't know the half of, and I most certainly was not there, but I am
still a bit puzzled that they killed him "because he was wearing a
suicide vest" because would that be /more/ likely to make it go off?
Don't these things traditionally have dead-man-switches or have I just
been watching too much TV?
But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public would be
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down, and would
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.
I for one, while not mourning this man's loss for one second, am
extremely uncomfortable with the notion that the police can exercise
summery execution. But on the other side of the coin, I am also acutely
aware that the police have to make a snap decision.
As the saying goes.... it is complicated.
No doubt there will be an inquest and the officers will explain why they
thought it appropriate to shoot the terrorist. He was undoubtedly a
terrorist, of course, but they are required to use only force that is
reasonable and proportionate.

It will probably be an Operation Kratos scenario. Or maybe they've
changed the name from Kratos.

If the idiot chose to wear a pretend suicide vest he cannot have been
surprised that he was not given an opportunity to surrender to custody.

Whereas if (to use the phoney example given by Andrew Neil in his
interview with Jeremy Corbyn) the police had an opportunity to capture
or kill an ISIS commander, there would be a logical reason to capture
and interrogate him rather than kill him, if that can be done without
putting lives at risk. Killing a leader does not stop terrorism. It
merely creates good poll ratings for the President or Prime Minister.
Peter Percival
2019-12-01 15:46:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If the idiot [] chose to wear a pretend suicide vest he cannot have been
surprised that he was not given an opportunity to surrender to custody.
It probably wasn't idiocy, but done for a good reason. Martyrdom is
important for these people and wearing a pretend suicide vest ensures
that one gets shot dead.
Peter Percival
2019-12-01 15:49:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by The Todal
Quite funny, if you assume it was intended as a joke rather than to
influence the election.
@jeremycorbyn: A man was murdered by British police in Broad daylight
I don't know the half of, and I most certainly was not there, but I am
still a bit puzzled that they killed him "because he was wearing a
suicide vest" because would that be /more/ likely to make it go off?
Don't these things traditionally have dead-man-switches or have I just
been watching too much TV?
But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public would be
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down, and would
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.
I for one, while not mourning this man's loss for one second, am
extremely uncomfortable with the notion that the police can exercise
summery execution. But on the other side of the coin, I am also acutely
aware that the police have to make a snap decision.
As the saying goes.... it is complicated.
The police kill with impunity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom.
Incubus
2019-12-02 11:42:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by The Todal
Quite funny, if you assume it was intended as a joke rather than to
influence the election.
@jeremycorbyn: A man was murdered by British police in Broad daylight
I don't know the half of, and I most certainly was not there, but I am
still a bit puzzled that they killed him "because he was wearing a
suicide vest" because would that be /more/ likely to make it go off?
Don't these things traditionally have dead-man-switches or have I just
been watching too much TV?
I think you've been watching too much television. Shooting him seems to me the
best means of preventing detonation of any explosive. I'm sure they have
considered these things when creating procedures.
Post by Yellow
But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public would be
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down, and would
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.
Really? He stabbed a number of people and was wearing what appeared to be a
suicide vest. It's quite clear to me: you assume the worst and take him out.
Post by Yellow
I for one, while not mourning this man's loss for one second, am
extremely uncomfortable with the notion that the police can exercise
summery execution.
More of an autumnal execution. In terms of summary execution, of course they
can shoot someone dead who is threatening people's lives. What's the
alternative?
Post by Yellow
But on the other side of the coin, I am also acutely
aware that the police have to make a snap decision.
As the saying goes.... it is complicated.
I don't think it is complicated at all. I think their procedures reflect that.
You assume the worst and act on it. This isn't a case where an electrician
boarded a train. He went on a rampage and had what was intended to look like a
suicide vest strapped to his torso.
Yellow
2019-12-02 16:51:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:42:27 -0000 (UTC) Incubus <incubus9536612
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public would be
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down, and would
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.
Really?
Of course. Or do you imagine we all have some sort of hive mind?
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
But on the other side of the coin, I am also acutely
aware that the police have to make a snap decision.
As the saying goes.... it is complicated.
I don't think it is complicated at all.
The state terminating a life is always complicated, as well it should
be.
Incubus
2019-12-03 11:12:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:42:27 -0000 (UTC) Incubus <incubus9536612
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public would be
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down, and would
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.
Really?
Of course. Or do you imagine we all have some sort of hive mind?
Some issues are surely not that divisive. This isn't "Should we leave the EU?"
or "Would you like Proportional Representation"? It's "Is it justified for the
Police to shoot a nutter wearing what appears to be a suicide vest who is
currently embarking on a stabbing rampage"?

Let me think for a minute...
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
But on the other side of the coin, I am also acutely
aware that the police have to make a snap decision.
As the saying goes.... it is complicated.
I don't think it is complicated at all.
The state terminating a life is always complicated, as well it should
be.
The state saving innocent lives against one murderer certainly isn't
complicated, and never should it be.
Pancho
2019-12-02 17:43:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by The Todal
Quite funny, if you assume it was intended as a joke rather than to
influence the election.
@jeremycorbyn: A man was murdered by British police in Broad daylight
I don't know the half of, and I most certainly was not there, but I am
still a bit puzzled that they killed him "because he was wearing a
suicide vest" because would that be /more/ likely to make it go off?
Don't these things traditionally have dead-man-switches or have I just
been watching too much TV?
I think you've been watching too much television. Shooting him seems to me the
best means of preventing detonation of any explosive. I'm sure they have
considered these things when creating procedures.
Post by Yellow
But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public would be
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down, and would
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.
Really? He stabbed a number of people and was wearing what appeared to be a
suicide vest. It's quite clear to me: you assume the worst and take him out.
Appeared to be wearing a suicide vest. It doesn't seem particularly
plausible. I mean how common are they?

It seems to me that if a terrorist did possess a genuine explosive vest
they would use surprise to maximise the effect. For instance exploding
it in a packed crowd.

Using the knife first means that there is a risk that the terrorist
would be shot when in a poor position to cause damage with the vest.

So it got me to thinking, how often does it happen? Has it ever
happened? I mean happened in real life, not happened in the movies.
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
I for one, while not mourning this man's loss for one second, am
extremely uncomfortable with the notion that the police can exercise
summery execution.
More of an autumnal execution. In terms of summary execution, of course they
can shoot someone dead who is threatening people's lives. What's the
alternative?
AIUI The guy was already restrained. They could have hand cuffed him.
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
But on the other side of the coin, I am also acutely
aware that the police have to make a snap decision.
As the saying goes.... it is complicated.
I don't think it is complicated at all. I think their procedures reflect that.
You assume the worst and act on it. This isn't a case where an electrician
boarded a train. He went on a rampage and had what was intended to look like a
suicide vest strapped to his torso.
I agree, it wasn't De Menezes and I wouldn't blame these officers for a
decision made in a split second, but I don't think it should be standard
operating procedure.
pensive hamster
2019-12-02 20:25:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...]
Post by Pancho
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public would be
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down, and would
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.
Really? He stabbed a number of people and was wearing what appeared to be a
suicide vest. It's quite clear to me: you assume the worst and take him out.
Appeared to be wearing a suicide vest. It doesn't seem particularly
plausible. I mean how common are they?
Not common in this country, more common in the Middle East.
Post by Pancho
It seems to me that if a terrorist did possess a genuine explosive vest
they would use surprise to maximise the effect. For instance exploding
it in a packed crowd.
Yes, that seems to be what they normally do.
Post by Pancho
Using the knife first means that there is a risk that the terrorist
would be shot when in a poor position to cause damage with the vest.
So it got me to thinking, how often does it happen? Has it ever
happened? I mean happened in real life, not happened in the movies.
7 July 2005 is the only one I can think of, though those were suicide
backpacks rather than vests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#2000s

[...]
Pancho
2019-12-02 22:05:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Pancho
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public would be
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down, and would
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.
Really? He stabbed a number of people and was wearing what appeared to be a
suicide vest. It's quite clear to me: you assume the worst and take him out.
Appeared to be wearing a suicide vest. It doesn't seem particularly
plausible. I mean how common are they?
Not common in this country, more common in the Middle East.
Post by Pancho
It seems to me that if a terrorist did possess a genuine explosive vest
they would use surprise to maximise the effect. For instance exploding
it in a packed crowd.
Yes, that seems to be what they normally do.
Post by Pancho
Using the knife first means that there is a risk that the terrorist
would be shot when in a poor position to cause damage with the vest.
So it got me to thinking, how often does it happen? Has it ever
happened? I mean happened in real life, not happened in the movies.
7 July 2005 is the only one I can think of, though those were suicide
backpacks rather than vests.
Apologies, I don't appear to have made myself clear. I was explicitly
considering the case that someone would be wearing a suicide vest
while/after perpetrating a suicide style knife attack. This strategy
doesn't make sense to me.

Thus a police policy of shooting in such circumstances seems questionable.
pensive hamster
2019-12-02 22:24:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Pancho
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public would be
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down, and would
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.
Really? He stabbed a number of people and was wearing what appeared to be a
suicide vest. It's quite clear to me: you assume the worst and take him out.
Appeared to be wearing a suicide vest. It doesn't seem particularly
plausible. I mean how common are they?
Not common in this country, more common in the Middle East.
Post by Pancho
It seems to me that if a terrorist did possess a genuine explosive vest
they would use surprise to maximise the effect. For instance exploding
it in a packed crowd.
Yes, that seems to be what they normally do.
Post by Pancho
Using the knife first means that there is a risk that the terrorist
would be shot when in a poor position to cause damage with the vest.
So it got me to thinking, how often does it happen? Has it ever
happened? I mean happened in real life, not happened in the movies.
7 July 2005 is the only one I can think of, though those were suicide
backpacks rather than vests.
Apologies, I don't appear to have made myself clear. I was explicitly
considering the case that someone would be wearing a suicide vest
while/after perpetrating a suicide style knife attack.
Ah, OK.
Post by Pancho
This strategy
doesn't make sense to me.
Me neither.
Post by Pancho
Thus a police policy of shooting in such circumstances seems questionable.
But the police are on a hiding to nothing. If it had been a real suicide vest,
and they had failed to shoot Usman Khan dead before he detonated it ... ?

Perhaps it is better to play safe in those circumstances. And the police's
primary duty is to protect the public, so far as possible.
Ian Jackson
2019-12-02 23:03:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Pancho
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Pancho
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public would be
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down, and would
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.
Really? He stabbed a number of people and was wearing what appeared to be a
suicide vest. It's quite clear to me: you assume the worst and take him out.
Appeared to be wearing a suicide vest. It doesn't seem particularly
plausible. I mean how common are they?
Not common in this country, more common in the Middle East.
Post by Pancho
It seems to me that if a terrorist did possess a genuine explosive vest
they would use surprise to maximise the effect. For instance exploding
it in a packed crowd.
Yes, that seems to be what they normally do.
Post by Pancho
Using the knife first means that there is a risk that the terrorist
would be shot when in a poor position to cause damage with the vest.
So it got me to thinking, how often does it happen? Has it ever
happened? I mean happened in real life, not happened in the movies.
7 July 2005 is the only one I can think of, though those were suicide
backpacks rather than vests.
Apologies, I don't appear to have made myself clear. I was explicitly
considering the case that someone would be wearing a suicide vest
while/after perpetrating a suicide style knife attack.
Ah, OK.
Post by Pancho
This strategy
doesn't make sense to me.
Me neither.
Post by Pancho
Thus a police policy of shooting in such circumstances seems questionable.
But the police are on a hiding to nothing. If it had been a real suicide vest,
and they had failed to shoot Usman Khan dead before he detonated it ... ?
Perhaps it is better to play safe in those circumstances. And the police's
primary duty is to protect the public, so far as possible.
A couple of months ago, there was some debate about the police use of
tasers, and whether all police officers should be armed with a taser.
Quite a lot of in-phoners (and others) were against this, and were of
the firm opinion that the correct way to deal with anyone behaving in a
way that was endangering the police and the public was for the police to
discuss the matter with person concerned, and find out what the problem
was. [I'm not joking.]
--
Ian
Pancho
2019-12-03 09:46:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Pancho
Post by Yellow
But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public
would be
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Pancho
Post by Yellow
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down,
and would
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Pancho
Post by Yellow
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.
Really?  He stabbed a number of people and was wearing what
appeared to be a
suicide vest.  It's quite clear to me: you assume the worst and
take him out.
Appeared to be wearing a suicide vest. It doesn't seem particularly
plausible. I mean how common are they?
Not common in this country, more common in the Middle East.
Post by Pancho
It seems to me that if a terrorist did possess a genuine explosive
vest
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Pancho
they would use surprise to maximise the effect. For instance
exploding
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Pancho
it in a packed crowd.
Yes, that seems to be what they normally do.
Post by Pancho
Using the knife first means that there is a risk that the terrorist
would be shot when in a poor position to cause damage with the vest.
So it got me to thinking, how often does it happen? Has it ever
happened? I mean happened in real life, not happened in the movies.
7 July 2005 is the only one I can think of, though those were suicide
backpacks rather than vests.
Apologies, I don't appear to have made myself clear. I was explicitly
considering the case that someone would be wearing a suicide vest
while/after perpetrating a suicide style knife attack.
Ah, OK.
Post by Yellow
This strategy
doesn't make sense to me.
Me neither.
Post by Yellow
Thus a police policy of shooting in such circumstances seems
questionable.
But the police are on a hiding to nothing.  If it had been a real
suicide vest,
and they had failed to shoot Usman Khan dead before he detonated it ... ?
Perhaps it is better to play safe in those circumstances.  And the
police's
primary duty is to protect the public, so far as possible.
A couple of months ago, there was some debate about the police use of
tasers, and whether all police officers should be armed with a taser.
Quite a lot of in-phoners (and others) were against this, and were of
the firm opinion that the correct way to deal with anyone behaving in a
way that was endangering the police and the public was for the police to
discuss the matter with person concerned, and find out what the problem
was. [I'm not joking.]
I don't understand this comment. Surely in the vast majority of cases
the police will see if they can resolve the situation by discussion,
before using force.
Ian Jackson
2019-12-03 10:39:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Pancho
Post by Yellow
But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public
would be
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Pancho
Post by Yellow
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down,
and would
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Pancho
Post by Yellow
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.
Really?  He stabbed a number of people and was wearing what
appeared to be a
suicide vest.  It's quite clear to me: you assume the worst and
take him out.
Appeared to be wearing a suicide vest. It doesn't seem particularly
plausible. I mean how common are they?
Not common in this country, more common in the Middle East.
Post by Pancho
It seems to me that if a terrorist did possess a genuine
explosive
vest
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Pancho
they would use surprise to maximise the effect. For instance
exploding
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Pancho
it in a packed crowd.
Yes, that seems to be what they normally do.
Post by Pancho
Using the knife first means that there is a risk that the terrorist
would be shot when in a poor position to cause damage with the vest.
So it got me to thinking, how often does it happen? Has it ever
happened? I mean happened in real life, not happened in the movies.
7 July 2005 is the only one I can think of, though those were suicide
backpacks rather than vests.
Apologies, I don't appear to have made myself clear. I was explicitly
considering the case that someone would be wearing a suicide vest
while/after perpetrating a suicide style knife attack.
Ah, OK.
Post by Yellow
This strategy
doesn't make sense to me.
Me neither.
Post by Yellow
Thus a police policy of shooting in such circumstances seems questionable.
But the police are on a hiding to nothing.  If it had been a real
suicide vest,
and they had failed to shoot Usman Khan dead before he detonated it ... ?
Perhaps it is better to play safe in those circumstances.  And the
police's
primary duty is to protect the public, so far as possible.
A couple of months ago, there was some debate about the police use
of tasers, and whether all police officers should be armed with a
taser. Quite a lot of in-phoners (and others) were against this, and
were of the firm opinion that the correct way to deal with anyone
behaving in a way that was endangering the police and the public was
for the police to discuss the matter with person concerned, and find
out what the problem was. [I'm not joking.]
I don't understand this comment. Surely in the vast majority of cases
the police will see if they can resolve the situation by discussion,
before using force.
Of course they do - but these were folks who seemed to believe that
there was never a situation that couldn't be satisfactorily defused and
resolved by the police having a few gentle words - maybe a bit like
Joyce Grenfell's subtle "George - Don't do that"?
--
Ian
Pancho
2019-12-03 09:42:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Pancho
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Pancho
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public would be
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down, and would
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.
Really? He stabbed a number of people and was wearing what appeared to be a
suicide vest. It's quite clear to me: you assume the worst and take him out.
Appeared to be wearing a suicide vest. It doesn't seem particularly
plausible. I mean how common are they?
Not common in this country, more common in the Middle East.
Post by Pancho
It seems to me that if a terrorist did possess a genuine explosive vest
they would use surprise to maximise the effect. For instance exploding
it in a packed crowd.
Yes, that seems to be what they normally do.
Post by Pancho
Using the knife first means that there is a risk that the terrorist
would be shot when in a poor position to cause damage with the vest.
So it got me to thinking, how often does it happen? Has it ever
happened? I mean happened in real life, not happened in the movies.
7 July 2005 is the only one I can think of, though those were suicide
backpacks rather than vests.
Apologies, I don't appear to have made myself clear. I was explicitly
considering the case that someone would be wearing a suicide vest
while/after perpetrating a suicide style knife attack.
Ah, OK.
Post by Pancho
This strategy
doesn't make sense to me.
Me neither.
Post by Pancho
Thus a police policy of shooting in such circumstances seems questionable.
But the police are on a hiding to nothing. If it had been a real suicide vest,
and they had failed to shoot Usman Khan dead before he detonated it ... ?
Perhaps it is better to play safe in those circumstances. And the police's
primary duty is to protect the public, so far as possible.
Yes play safe.

My argument was the risk advantage of shooting an already incapacitated
"vest wearer" was so small that it was outweighed by the risk of making
a mistake, the risk of shooting an innocent member of the public.

So far the police have never successfully stopped a suicide vest wearer
by shooting them. They have killed an innocent man attempting to do so.

My argument is not about the rights and wrongs of executing terrorists
it is an argument about maximising my safety, as a member of the public.
Jeff
2019-12-03 10:41:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
So far the police have never successfully stopped a suicide vest wearer
by shooting them. They have killed an innocent man attempting to do so.
My argument is not about the rights and wrongs of executing terrorists
it is an argument about maximising my safety, as a member of the public.
Not in this country as far as I am aware, but there are quite a few
cases in other countries where suicide vest wearers have been shot
before they could detonate it.

Israel, the Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, probably more.

Jeff
Pancho
2019-12-03 10:56:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jeff
Post by Pancho
So far the police have never successfully stopped a suicide vest
wearer by shooting them. They have killed an innocent man attempting
to do so.
My argument is not about the rights and wrongs of executing terrorists
it is an argument about maximising my safety, as a member of the public.
Not in this country as far as I am aware, but there are quite a few
cases in other countries where suicide vest wearers have been shot
before they could detonate it.
Israel, the Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, probably more.
Jeff
Example cites of cases where shooting prevented the detonation of a
viable device would be helpful.
Jeff
2019-12-03 11:32:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Jeff
Post by Pancho
So far the police have never successfully stopped a suicide vest
wearer by shooting them. They have killed an innocent man attempting
to do so.
My argument is not about the rights and wrongs of executing
terrorists it is an argument about maximising my safety, as a member
of the public.
Not in this country as far as I am aware, but there are quite a few
cases in other countries where suicide vest wearers have been shot
before they could detonate it.
Israel, the Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, probably more.
Jeff
Example cites of cases where shooting prevented the detonation of a
viable device would be helpful.
Google is your friend

Jeff
Pancho
2019-12-03 13:19:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jeff
Post by Pancho
Post by Jeff
Post by Pancho
So far the police have never successfully stopped a suicide vest
wearer by shooting them. They have killed an innocent man attempting
to do so.
My argument is not about the rights and wrongs of executing
terrorists it is an argument about maximising my safety, as a member
of the public.
Not in this country as far as I am aware, but there are quite a few
cases in other countries where suicide vest wearers have been shot
before they could detonate it.
Israel, the Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, probably more.
Jeff
Example cites of cases where shooting prevented the detonation of a
viable device would be helpful.
Google is your friend
OK, anyone with actual examples, please feel free to chip in. Anyone
without actual examples please feel free to stay silent.
Post by Jeff
Jeff
Jeff
2019-12-03 16:40:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Jeff
Post by Pancho
Example cites of cases where shooting prevented the detonation of a
viable device would be helpful.
Google is your friend
OK, anyone with actual examples, please feel free to chip in. Anyone
without actual examples please feel free to stay silent.
Well if you didn't want everything given to you on a plate you could
research it yourself, just like I did!!

5 mins with Google will give you 5 or 6 examples straight away, without
having to look too hard.

Jeff
pamela
2019-12-08 00:29:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Jeff
Post by Pancho
So far the police have never successfully stopped a suicide vest
wearer by shooting them. They have killed an innocent man attempting
to do so.
My argument is not about the rights and wrongs of executing terrorists
it is an argument about maximising my safety, as a member of the public.
Not in this country as far as I am aware, but there are quite a few
cases in other countries where suicide vest wearers have been shot
before they could detonate it.
Israel, the Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, probably more.
Jeff
Example cites of cases where shooting prevented the detonation of a
viable device would be helpful.
So following your logic, if a person is apprehended wearing a suicide vest
then they should never be shot because the vest must be a fake.

Anyone can see this that isn't going to work in the long run.
Pancho
2019-12-08 09:57:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pamela
Post by Pancho
Post by Jeff
Post by Pancho
So far the police have never successfully stopped a suicide vest
wearer by shooting them. They have killed an innocent man attempting
to do so.
My argument is not about the rights and wrongs of executing terrorists
it is an argument about maximising my safety, as a member of the public.
Not in this country as far as I am aware, but there are quite a few
cases in other countries where suicide vest wearers have been shot
before they could detonate it.
Israel, the Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, probably more.
Jeff
Example cites of cases where shooting prevented the detonation of a
viable device would be helpful.
So following your logic, if a person is apprehended wearing a suicide vest
then they should never be shot because the vest must be a fake.
No I'm not saying never, there are no doubt theoretical cases where it
would be sensible. What I am saying is that in many/most real life
situations shoot first is not the best strategy.

Shooting in crowded public places is very dangerous. Since I posted
before we have now been shown the pictures of at least one bus having
bullet holes.

In this instance the public had already incapacitated Khan. The police
intervention appears to have been to cause Khan to be released and then
to shoot him and the bus full of people. They appear to have increased
the danger rather than reduced it. I don't think this is an uncommon
consequence of a shoot first strategy.
Post by pamela
Anyone can see this that isn't going to work in the long run.
I'm not sure I understand your point?
pamela
2019-12-09 20:48:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by pamela
Post by Pancho
Post by Jeff
Post by Pancho
So far the police have never successfully stopped a suicide vest
wearer by shooting them. They have killed an innocent man attempting
to do so.
My argument is not about the rights and wrongs of executing
terrorists it is an argument about maximising my safety, as a member
of the public.
Not in this country as far as I am aware, but there are quite a few
cases in other countries where suicide vest wearers have been shot
before they could detonate it.
Israel, the Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, probably more.
Jeff
Example cites of cases where shooting prevented the detonation of a
viable device would be helpful.
So following your logic, if a person is apprehended wearing a suicide
vest then they should never be shot because the vest must be a fake.
No I'm not saying never, there are no doubt theoretical cases where it
would be sensible. What I am saying is that in many/most real life
situations shoot first is not the best strategy.
Shooting in crowded public places is very dangerous. Since I posted
before we have now been shown the pictures of at least one bus having
bullet holes.
In this instance the public had already incapacitated Khan.
The risk was when he was couldn't escape he would detonate his suicide
bomb. The balance is between the unnecessary death of one terrorist and
the unneccessary deaths of 10 or 20 bystanders.
Post by Pancho
The police intervention appears to have been to cause Khan to be
released and then to shoot him and the bus full of people. They appear
to have increased the danger rather than reduced it. I don't think this
is an uncommon consequence of a shoot first strategy.
Post by pamela
Anyone can see this that isn't going to work in the long run.
I'm not sure I understand your point?
If only fake vests are displayed by the wearer and the police adopt a
policy of not shooting a terrorist displaying such a fake suicide vest,
then subsequent terrorists would deliberately let their genuine suicide
vests show so they could manoeuvre into a position where they can kill a
greater number of bystanders.

A policy of not shooting on account of a visible vest is not going to work
in the long run.

Incubus
2019-12-03 11:20:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Pancho
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Pancho
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public would be
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down, and would
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.
Really? He stabbed a number of people and was wearing what appeared to be a
suicide vest. It's quite clear to me: you assume the worst and take him out.
Appeared to be wearing a suicide vest. It doesn't seem particularly
plausible. I mean how common are they?
Not common in this country, more common in the Middle East.
Post by Pancho
It seems to me that if a terrorist did possess a genuine explosive vest
they would use surprise to maximise the effect. For instance exploding
it in a packed crowd.
Yes, that seems to be what they normally do.
Post by Pancho
Using the knife first means that there is a risk that the terrorist
would be shot when in a poor position to cause damage with the vest.
So it got me to thinking, how often does it happen? Has it ever
happened? I mean happened in real life, not happened in the movies.
7 July 2005 is the only one I can think of, though those were suicide
backpacks rather than vests.
Apologies, I don't appear to have made myself clear. I was explicitly
considering the case that someone would be wearing a suicide vest
while/after perpetrating a suicide style knife attack.
Ah, OK.
Post by Pancho
This strategy
doesn't make sense to me.
Me neither.
Post by Pancho
Thus a police policy of shooting in such circumstances seems questionable.
But the police are on a hiding to nothing. If it had been a real suicide vest,
and they had failed to shoot Usman Khan dead before he detonated it ... ?
Perhaps it is better to play safe in those circumstances. And the police's
primary duty is to protect the public, so far as possible.
Yes play safe.
My argument was the risk advantage of shooting an already incapacitated
"vest wearer" was so small that it was outweighed by the risk of making
a mistake, the risk of shooting an innocent member of the public.
So far the police have never successfully stopped a suicide vest wearer
by shooting them. They have killed an innocent man attempting to do so.
My argument is not about the rights and wrongs of executing terrorists
it is an argument about maximising my safety, as a member of the public.
Here's a tip: don't don what appears to be a suicide vest and go on a knife
rampage.
pensive hamster
2019-12-03 19:54:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...]
Post by Pancho
Post by pensive hamster
But the police are on a hiding to nothing. If it had been a real suicide vest,
and they had failed to shoot Usman Khan dead before he detonated it ... ?
Perhaps it is better to play safe in those circumstances. And the police's
primary duty is to protect the public, so far as possible.
Yes play safe.
My argument was the risk advantage of shooting an already incapacitated
"vest wearer"
I seem to remember reading that while Usman Khan was on the ground
and restrained by some members of the public, he opened his jacket to
display an apparent suicide vest, which hadn't previously been visible.
At that point, he wasn't sufficiently incapacitated to prevent him from
detonating his vest.

When his vest become visible, police pulled members of the public away
from him, and then shot him.

On R4 news, the BBC's Security Correspondent Frank Gardner suggested
that the reason why jihadists like Usman Khan might wear fake suicide
vests was because they preferred martyrdom to life imprisonment.
Post by Pancho
was so small that it was outweighed by the risk of making
a mistake, the risk of shooting an innocent member of the public.
You mean, the risk of shooting an innocent member of the public
who happened to be wearing a (possibly fake) suicide vest ??
Post by Pancho
So far the police have never successfully stopped a suicide vest wearer
by shooting them. They have killed an innocent man attempting to do so.
My argument is not about the rights and wrongs of executing terrorists
it is an argument about maximising my safety, as a member of the public.
Pancho
2019-12-03 20:51:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Pancho
Post by pensive hamster
But the police are on a hiding to nothing. If it had been a real suicide vest,
and they had failed to shoot Usman Khan dead before he detonated it ... ?
Perhaps it is better to play safe in those circumstances. And the police's
primary duty is to protect the public, so far as possible.
Yes play safe.
My argument was the risk advantage of shooting an already incapacitated
"vest wearer"
I seem to remember reading that while Usman Khan was on the ground
and restrained by some members of the public, he opened his jacket to
display an apparent suicide vest, which hadn't previously been visible.
At that point, he wasn't sufficiently incapacitated to prevent him from
detonating his vest.
I seem to remember reports of De Menezes jumping the tube barrier and
wearing a heavy coat. He didn't, he wasn't.

I seem to remember reports of a police officer being shot by Mark
Duggan, it latter turned out that this officer was hit by a police bullet.

It seems that immediately after an incident a report is issued which
justifies police actions but is latter shown to be false.

It also seems strange that the people pinning him down would leave his
hands free to open his jacket.
Post by pensive hamster
When his vest become visible, police pulled members of the public away
from him, and then shot him.
Or maybe, they pulled the public guy off and just shot Khan. Maybe that
is their operating instructions, just shoot.
Post by pensive hamster
On R4 news, the BBC's Security Correspondent Frank Gardner suggested
that the reason why jihadists like Usman Khan might wear fake suicide
vests was because they preferred martyrdom to life imprisonment.
Post by Pancho
was so small that it was outweighed by the risk of making
a mistake, the risk of shooting an innocent member of the public.
You mean, the risk of shooting an innocent member of the public
who happened to be wearing a (possibly fake) suicide vest ??
In the general case yes, like De Menezes. In this specific case there
was a risk they might occidentally shoot someone else. In very tense
situations it is quite common to have big cock ups. As I said above, in
the Duggan shooting a police officer was hit by a police bullet.

I'm not complaining about them killing Khan, I'm pleased he is dead. I'm
pointing out risks.

Risk is often counter intuitive. For instance it is often quoted, in the
US, that carrying a gun actually increases your risk of being killed if
you are attacked.
pensive hamster
2019-12-03 21:39:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...]
Post by Pancho
Post by pensive hamster
I seem to remember reading that while Usman Khan was on the ground
and restrained by some members of the public, he opened his jacket to
display an apparent suicide vest, which hadn't previously been visible.
At that point, he wasn't sufficiently incapacitated to prevent him from
detonating his vest.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/29/london-bridge-attack-police-and-public-were-heroic-says-mayor

'... Bosch said she moved to a safer place on the bus. "We were on
the other side of the carriageway but there was nothing between us
and what was going on.

"The guy on the floor opened his jacket and police backed away really
fast. I thought maybe it was a bomb vest and if that went off, we were
so close. I was so worried about my baby. So I moved to the other side
of the stairwell. ... "
Post by Pancho
I seem to remember reports of De Menezes jumping the tube barrier and
wearing a heavy coat. He didn't, he wasn't.
I seem to remember reports of a police officer being shot by Mark
Duggan, it latter turned out that this officer was hit by a police bullet.
It seems that immediately after an incident a report is issued which
justifies police actions but is latter shown to be false.
It also seems strange that the people pinning him down would leave his
hands free to open his jacket.
Post by pensive hamster
When his vest become visible, police pulled members of the public away
from him, and then shot him.
Or maybe, they pulled the public guy off and just shot Khan. Maybe that
is their operating instructions, just shoot.
Post by pensive hamster
On R4 news, the BBC's Security Correspondent Frank Gardner suggested
that the reason why jihadists like Usman Khan might wear fake suicide
vests was because they preferred martyrdom to life imprisonment.
Post by Pancho
was so small that it was outweighed by the risk of making
a mistake, the risk of shooting an innocent member of the public.
You mean, the risk of shooting an innocent member of the public
who happened to be wearing a (possibly fake) suicide vest ??
In the general case yes, like De Menezes. In this specific case there
was a risk they might occidentally shoot someone else. In very tense
situations it is quite common to have big cock ups. As I said above, in
the Duggan shooting a police officer was hit by a police bullet.
I'm not complaining about them killing Khan, I'm pleased he is dead. I'm
pointing out risks.
Risk is often counter intuitive. For instance it is often quoted, in the
US, that carrying a gun actually increases your risk of being killed if
you are attacked.
Pancho
2019-12-03 22:11:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/29/london-bridge-attack-police-and-public-were-heroic-says-mayor
'... Bosch said she moved to a safer place on the bus. "We were on
the other side of the carriageway but there was nothing between us
and what was going on.
"The guy on the floor opened his jacket and police backed away really
fast. I thought maybe it was a bomb vest and if that went off, we were
so close. I was so worried about my baby. So I moved to the other side
of the stairwell. ... "
Yes, as I said, De Menezes was reported jumping over the tube barrier
and wearing a heavy coat.

Witnesses say a lot of shit and it seems that the versions that suit the
police are the ones that get widely reported in the media.

You do accept that we have been significantly mislead in the immediate
aftermath of previous police shootings, don't you? Why do you think this
one is different?

At no point have I pretended to know what happened.
The Todal
2019-12-04 21:37:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/29/london-bridge-attack-police-and-public-were-heroic-says-mayor
'... Bosch said she moved to a safer place on the bus. "We were on
the other side of the carriageway but there was nothing between us
and what was going on.
"The guy on the floor opened his jacket and police backed away really
fast. I thought maybe it was a bomb vest and if that went off, we were
so close. I was so worried about my baby. So I moved to the other side
of the stairwell. ... "
Yes, as I said,  De Menezes was reported jumping over the tube barrier
and wearing a heavy coat.
That's because a pursuing police officer jumped over the tube barrier.
Witnesses misconstrued what they were watching.
Witnesses say a lot of shit and it seems that the versions that suit the
police are the ones that get widely reported in the media.
No, it's more likely that the press is always scraping the bottom of the
barrel for more scraps of colourful testimony to flesh out their reports.
You do accept that we have been significantly mislead in the immediate
aftermath of previous police shootings, don't you? Why do you think this
one is different?
Whether or not "we" have been misled, that doesn't actually affect the
decisions of any future inquest jury.
At no point have I pretended to know what happened.
Keema's Nan
2019-12-04 22:32:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/29/london-bridge-attack-police
-and-public-were-heroic-says-mayor
'... Bosch said she moved to a safer place on the bus. "We were on
the other side of the carriageway but there was nothing between us
and what was going on.
"The guy on the floor opened his jacket and police backed away really
fast. I thought maybe it was a bomb vest and if that went off, we were
so close. I was so worried about my baby. So I moved to the other side
of the stairwell. ... "
Yes, as I said, De Menezes was reported jumping over the tube barrier
and wearing a heavy coat.
That's because a pursuing police officer jumped over the tube barrier.
Witnesses misconstrued what they were watching.
Bollocks.

Mark Whitby (whoever he was working for) was detailed to stand in front of
the media and say exactly what he said.

It is strange how no police or security service spokesman remembered to
correct Whitby’s bare faced lies until many days after the description had
been mentioned in every newspaper and tv report across the world.

No official ever said that De Menezes was sitting quietly on the tube train
when the assassination squad were directed to him. In fact all police
‘witnesses’ said they shouted “armed police” and yet none of the
public witnesses on or near the train heard that.

You really need a new mind. Yours is corrupted.
Post by The Todal
Witnesses say a lot of shit and it seems that the versions that suit the
police are the ones that get widely reported in the media.
No, it's more likely that the press is always scraping the bottom of the
barrel for more scraps of colourful testimony to flesh out their reports.
You do accept that we have been significantly mislead in the immediate
aftermath of previous police shootings, don't you? Why do you think this
one is different?
Whether or not "we" have been misled, that doesn't actually affect the
decisions of any future inquest jury.
At no point have I pretended to know what happened.
Pancho
2019-12-05 10:09:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/29/london-bridge-attack-police-and-public-were-heroic-says-mayor
'... Bosch said she moved to a safer place on the bus. "We were on
the other side of the carriageway but there was nothing between us
and what was going on.
"The guy on the floor opened his jacket and police backed away really
fast. I thought maybe it was a bomb vest and if that went off, we were
so close. I was so worried about my baby. So I moved to the other side
of the stairwell. ... "
Yes, as I said,  De Menezes was reported jumping over the tube barrier
and wearing a heavy coat.
That's because a pursuing police officer jumped over the tube barrier.
Witnesses misconstrued what they were watching.
My point was that the story released in the immediate aftermath of the
event was shit. It doesn't matter why it was shit. It was shit.

The conclusion is that we should be sceptical of similar reports we see
released after similar events.
Post by The Todal
Witnesses say a lot of shit and it seems that the versions that suit
the police are the ones that get widely reported in the media.
No, it's more likely that the press is always scraping the bottom of the
barrel for more scraps of colourful testimony to flesh out their reports.
Yes. Whilst the police may not concoct and distribute the story
themselves, the press will talk to police officials with regards to
stories they are going to publish. If a false story is circulated that
puts the police in a bad light the police are quick to release their
side of the story.

Hence we have a clear news bias in favour of the police.
Post by The Todal
You do accept that we have been significantly mislead in the immediate
aftermath of previous police shootings, don't you? Why do you think
this one is different?
Whether or not "we" have been misled, that doesn't actually affect the
decisions of any future inquest jury.
We'll if you don't think *we* were misled following the DeMenzes
shooting, I really don't know what to say. Ian Blair standing in front
of a news conference on the evening of the shooting, being praised for
stopping a terrorist, he already knew it was a colossal fuck up. Still,
perhaps he had his fingers crossed and that makes it ok in your mind.

Your statement that inquests are not affected by previous media reports
and public sentiment is just plain dumb. Do you really want me to point
out why?
Keema's Nan
2019-12-05 17:17:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/29/london-bridge-attack-polic
e-and-public-were-heroic-says-mayor
'... Bosch said she moved to a safer place on the bus. "We were on
the other side of the carriageway but there was nothing between us
and what was going on.
"The guy on the floor opened his jacket and police backed away really
fast. I thought maybe it was a bomb vest and if that went off, we were
so close. I was so worried about my baby. So I moved to the other side
of the stairwell. ... "
Yes, as I said, De Menezes was reported jumping over the tube barrier
and wearing a heavy coat.
That's because a pursuing police officer jumped over the tube barrier.
Witnesses misconstrued what they were watching.
My point was that the story released in the immediate aftermath of the
event was shit. It doesn't matter why it was shit. It was shit.
The conclusion is that we should be sceptical of similar reports we see
released after similar events.
Exactly, and the reports issued immediately after the Skripal poisoning were
nothing like the official narrative which has now been agreed on by those in
power.
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
Witnesses say a lot of shit and it seems that the versions that suit
the police are the ones that get widely reported in the media.
No, it's more likely that the press is always scraping the bottom of the
barrel for more scraps of colourful testimony to flesh out their reports.
Yes. Whilst the police may not concoct and distribute the story
themselves, the press will talk to police officials with regards to
stories they are going to publish. If a false story is circulated that
puts the police in a bad light the police are quick to release their
side of the story.
Hence we have a clear news bias in favour of the police.
A very sad state of affairs, but true.
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
You do accept that we have been significantly mislead in the immediate
aftermath of previous police shootings, don't you? Why do you think
this one is different?
Whether or not "we" have been misled, that doesn't actually affect the
decisions of any future inquest jury.
We'll if you don't think *we* were misled following the DeMenzes
shooting, I really don't know what to say. Ian Blair standing in front
of a news conference on the evening of the shooting, being praised for
stopping a terrorist, he already knew it was a colossal fuck up. Still,
perhaps he had his fingers crossed and that makes it ok in your mind.
The cops knew the identity of the 21st July copycat bomb plotters and where
at least one of them lived; which is why they staked out the block of flats.

Why not do the obvious thing and just surround the stairwells and exits; bash
the door down and arrest the accused?

Why wait for someone to appear out of the outside door and have the
surveillance man gone for a piss at that precise time so he couldn’t take a
photo which would have positively identified him as the wrong man?

Why then allow a potential suicide bomber (who was supposedly wearing a belt
full of explosives) onto a crowded bus on a crowded street which was jammed
by traffic, and then onto a tube train after what had happened 2 weeks
earlier?

It beggars belief. And the woman who was in charge of this catastrophic
failure is now in charge of the entire Met, and not where she should be, in
the dole queue.
Post by Pancho
Your statement that inquests are not affected by previous media reports
and public sentiment is just plain dumb.
He is just plain dumb, but he keeps posting as if he has a PhD in Dumbness.
Post by Pancho
Do you really want me to point
out why?
The Todal
2019-12-05 19:00:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Your statement that inquests are not affected by previous media reports
and public sentiment is just plain dumb. Do you really want me to point
out why?
Yeah, go on. Knock yourself out.
Pancho
2019-12-06 11:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Your statement that inquests are not affected by previous media
reports and public sentiment is just plain dumb. Do you really want me
to point out why?
Yeah, go on. Knock yourself out.
OK, the idea that anyone is totally unaffected by information is a
hyperbolic statement. It might have a small effect but, we are the sum
of our prejudices.

So the question is does previous reporting significantly affect trials.
In the UK we have decided that it does, to such an extent that it is
optimal to restrict press reports prior to, and during, criminal trials,
lest they prejudice the verdict. Many people argue that we should
prioritise freedom of speech over the possibility of prejudicing a trial
but I don't think I have ever heard anyone seriously claim that press
reports do not affect trials, at all.

Even legal professionals will be prejudiced by information prior to the
trial. They may be better equipped to interpret poor and misleading
information but they will still be affected by it, on some occasions, to
some extent.

Perhaps you think coroners are different to criminal trials, but I see
no reason to believe a coroner jury would not be affected in the same
ways as a criminal jury.
Incubus
2019-12-03 11:17:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by The Todal
Quite funny, if you assume it was intended as a joke rather than to
influence the election.
@jeremycorbyn: A man was murdered by British police in Broad daylight
I don't know the half of, and I most certainly was not there, but I am
still a bit puzzled that they killed him "because he was wearing a
suicide vest" because would that be /more/ likely to make it go off?
Don't these things traditionally have dead-man-switches or have I just
been watching too much TV?
I think you've been watching too much television. Shooting him seems to me the
best means of preventing detonation of any explosive. I'm sure they have
considered these things when creating procedures.
Post by Yellow
But whatever, I would not automatically assume that the public would be
for the police killing this fellow, given he was already down, and would
expect opinion to be quite split on the matter.
Really? He stabbed a number of people and was wearing what appeared to be a
suicide vest. It's quite clear to me: you assume the worst and take him out.
Appeared to be wearing a suicide vest. It doesn't seem particularly
plausible. I mean how common are they?
Guns are not that common either. Perhaps we should give people wielding
firearms the benefit of the doubt. I mean, it might not be real.
Post by Pancho
It seems to me that if a terrorist did possess a genuine explosive vest
they would use surprise to maximise the effect. For instance exploding
it in a packed crowd.
Perhaps. Perhaps they'd go for maximum carnage.
Post by Pancho
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
I for one, while not mourning this man's loss for one second, am
extremely uncomfortable with the notion that the police can exercise
summery execution.
More of an autumnal execution. In terms of summary execution, of course they
can shoot someone dead who is threatening people's lives. What's the
alternative?
AIUI The guy was already restrained. They could have hand cuffed him.
He could have detonated what appeared to be a suicide vest.
Post by Pancho
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
But on the other side of the coin, I am also acutely
aware that the police have to make a snap decision.
As the saying goes.... it is complicated.
I don't think it is complicated at all. I think their procedures reflect that.
You assume the worst and act on it. This isn't a case where an electrician
boarded a train. He went on a rampage and had what was intended to look like a
suicide vest strapped to his torso.
I agree, it wasn't De Menezes and I wouldn't blame these officers for a
decision made in a split second, but I don't think it should be standard
operating procedure.
What's your alternative?
pensive hamster
2019-12-02 20:52:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Quite funny, if you assume it was intended as a joke rather than to
influence the election.
@jeremycorbyn: A man was murdered by British police in Broad daylight
The one about Jo Swinson killing squirrels is funnier, IMO.

Difficult to imagine these fake news stories might influence the
election, but on the other hand, a well-crafted fake news story
can be more memorable than the real news.

And if a politician denies the fake story, they risk giving it more
publicity, and also making themselves look a bt silly.

For example, if say Michael Gove was forced to deny that he
wears Wellington boots in bed, people would remember the
image rather than the denial. (That's an invented example, btw.)

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/jo-swinson-squirrels-fake-news-twitter

------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/21/jo-swinson-squirrel-twitter

'How am I meant to explain to you, a civilised person, that someone
online concocted a bit ("Jo Swinson kills squirrels") and then mocked
up a screenshot of a Mirror story with a preposterous byline ("by
Wurrence Telephene") that explained in detail that Jo Swinson kills
squirrels – (she calls them "pleb bunnies", according to the Fake Mirror)
– and then a whole faction of online jokers had followed up with more
fake stories about Swinson’s violent and historic hatred of squirrels and
Photoshopped squirrels lying prone under the wheels of Jo Swinson’s
bus, and that it was all fake, and that this is dangerous and deranged,
but also hilarious, how do I explain that to you, a normal person? How
do I explain that that is something that is happening?

'But then Jo Swinson talked about it to LBC and now we can talk about
it, here, out in the daylight. Asked by smirking presenter Iain Dale what
she thought about squirrels, Swinson replied (unconvincingly),
"I … like squirrels" before going on to denounce the "very fake news"
of memes about her killing woodland creatures with a shotgun. But not
before making a deliciously agonising two-second thinking-out-loud
sound, the sort of ah–ah–ah noise you make when you’re forced to tell
the British media you don’t cull animals for fun without being properly
briefed about it first.

"They’re quite sophisticated, and people do believe them," she said of
the bizarro stories invading politics. Did she explicitly refute the claims
that she kills squirrels? She did not. So, for my money, until Jo Swinson
releases an explicit statement saying she doesn’t want to launch a nuke
simply to destroy all squirrels, she’s still got their thin red blood on her
hands.'
Loading...