Suffolk_fox Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 Reuters News Agency: MIAMI - A fugitive gunman accused of killing a Florida sheriff’s deputy was shot 68 times by SWAT team officers who found him hiding in the woods, according to autopsy results. Police fired 110 shots at Angilo Freeland, 27, the target of a massive manhunt in central Florida following the shooting death of Polk County Sheriff’s Deputy Matt Williams Thursday. “That’s all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more,†Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel newspaper. Outstanding!!!! Can't have been much of him left to count holes in?!?!
Benji Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 Can you imagine that happeneing here? We'd be paying the family £4 million in compensation, have police enquiries, demonstrations against the government and the chief of police sacked. You've gotta love the yanks
lcfc_jme Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 Can you imagine that happeneing here? We'd be paying the family £4 million in compensation, have police enquiries, demonstrations against the government and the chief of police sacked. You've gotta love the yanks Exactly. Because it breaches somebody's human rights <_< What a load of bollox. I'd love for our police or secret service etc to shoot rapists, peadophiles, murderers nearly 70 times, but it'd never happen
Daggers Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 We do shoot people here, remember people? Only they have this nasty habit of being innocent...
lcfc_jme Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 We do shoot people here, remember people? Only they have this nasty habit of being innocent... Lets all have a Disco, Lets all have a Disco (sorry :pinch: ) Yeah we shoot people here, only if they're suspected terrorists and we think they may be about to massacre thousands of people. Terrorists aren't the only people who need shooting here though, and they are not the only people here that can cause suffering to many a person (and I do not support terrorists in any way whatsoever btw before anybody thinks I do)
Daggers Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 Yeah we shoot people here, only if they're suspected terrorists and we think they may be about to massacre thousands of people Unfortunately this is not the case. Neil David Garrett is a Producer for ITV News.In August 2005, Garrett secured the sensational exclusive for ITV News around the Stockwell Shooting Enquiry into the death of Jean Charles De Menezes which revealed that Mr De Menezes was not acting suspiciously, was not wearing a "bulky jacket" and did not vault the barrier on entry to Stockwell tube station, which was the premise for him being shot 8 times by the Metropolitan Police under Operation Kratos. On 5 October 2005, Garrett was arrested in a dawn raid on his home by Leicestershire Serious Crime Unit who had been commissioned by the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate the leak. After being incarcerated, personal communications equipment seized and questioned 3 times, answering bail 4 times in total, Garrett was finally cleared of any wrong doingon 04 May 2006. He wrote a brief account of his ordeal, in a special report entitled 'The Cost of Telling the Truth' for the Guardian newspaper on 15 May 2006. Also, one can harp back to other ****-ups by the police - and none of these were terrorists either: Derek Bennett, Harry Stanley, Cherry Groce and Stephen Waldorf We shoot people here when those with the guns get twitchy, scared or lose focus. Saying that they were acting to prevent terrorism simply doesn't cut it. They weren't, as has been more than graphically documented. If we were allowed a decent inquiry and prosecution then maybe we could get to find out exactly why!
cisono Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 Lets all have a Disco, Lets all have a Disco (sorry :pinch: ) Yeah we shoot people here, only if they're suspected terrorists and we think they may be about to massacre thousands of people. Terrorists aren't the only people who need shooting here though, and they are not the only people here that can cause suffering to many a person (and I do not support terrorists in any way whatsoever btw before anybody thinks I do) Unfortunately, it does not matter if you are shooting a suspected paedophile terrorist or a kid suspected to have stolen a slice of bread. The moment you shoot someone who turns out to be innocent, the whole justice system should be in mourning.
lcfc_jme Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 Unfortunately this is not the case. Also, one can harp back to other ****-ups by the police - and none of these were terrorists either: Derek Bennett, Harry Stanley, Cherry Groce and Stephen Waldorf We shoot people here when those with the guns get twitchy, scared or lose focus. Saying that they were acting to prevent terrorism simply doesn't cut it. They weren't, as has been more than graphically documented. If we were allowed a decent inquiry and prosecution then maybe we could get to find out exactly why! Alright then dude. In my experience, we only shoot terrorists, but I'm just coming out into the big wide world and starting to take an interest in the news after being shielded from everything as a youngster ( ). Maybe because I'm young and did not take any interest whatsoever in any news in years gone by (minus the Soham case), I do not know what you are making references to with the bits I've highlighted in bold. The police should be exactly sure of everything before pulling the trigger, but if it's a spur of the moment thing and they (*think*) are gona be saving many lives by shooting, then I'm not gona say they shouldn't. It strikes me as funny that if the police didn't shoot Jean Charles and he did turn out to be a terrorist, and he blew himself up taking hundreds or thousands of lives with him, they'd have been absolutely berated by everybody and there'd still have been a public outcry. They're in a no-win situation really as far as terrorism is concerned.
lcfc_jme Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 Unfortunately, it does not matter if you are shooting a suspected paedophile terrorist or a kid suspected to have stolen a slice of bread. The moment you shoot someone who turns out to be innocent, the whole justice system should be in mourning. Read a point I made in my previous post and you'll see I've got the police put down as being in a no-win situation as far as the terrorist thing goes, and that they need to be 100% certain of everything before they go blasting people
Steven Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 Unfortunately, it does not matter if you are shooting a suspected paedophile terrorist or a kid suspected to have stolen a slice of bread. The moment you shoot someone who turns out to be innocent, the whole justice system should be in mourning. Too true. <_<
Daggers Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 Check them out on the internet. Cherry Groce is a good one - she was a mother, asleep in bed, when she was shot! All of them, unarmed and innocent. The police should be exactly sure of everything before pulling the trigger, but if it's a spur of the moment thing and they (*think*) are gona be saving many lives by shooting, then I'm not gona say they shouldn't. The overwhelming evidence from the De Menezes shooting demonstrates that the police weren't sure of anything, irresponsibly acted on impulse and then lied over and over again. Disgusting behaviour. It strikes me as funny that if the police didn't shoot Jean Charles and he did turn out to be a terrorist... You simply can not use this as an argument to go around shooting anyone you suspect. The whole point of our society is that the police have to act in a responsible and prudent manner at all times, balanced against our right to freedom of movement and expression...and, most importantly, the right not to be shot by them! As soon as you start justifying an 'open season' on all suspected wrongdoers then you may as well roll down the shutters, phone up stulcfc and Fox4Eva, and get the BNP to start running things. *Both of the members have openly expressed their support for the aforementioned facist organisation*
lcfc_jme Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 Check them out on the internet. Cherry Groce is a good one - she was a mother, asleep in bed, when she was shot! All of them, unarmed and innocent. The overwhelming evidence from the De Menezes shooting demonstrates that the police weren't sure of anything, irresponsibly acted on impulse and then lied over and over again. Disgusting behaviour. You simply can not use this as an argument to go around shooting anyone you suspect. The whole point of our society is that the police have to act in a responsible and prudent manner at all times, balanced against our right to freedom of movement and expression...and, most importantly, the right not to be shot by them! As soon as you start justifying an 'open season' on all suspected wrongdoers then you may as well roll down the shutters, phone up stulcfc and Fox4Eva, and get the BNP to start running things. *Both of the members have openly expressed their support for the aforementioned facist organisation* Disgusting behaviour indeed if they were shot dead without motive. I agree that this is despicable on the part of the police, and no matter how you try, you cannot justify this or even attempt to argue it was right. No you cannot use it as an argument, but this is where I said the police are in a no-win situation, and so their actions will never please nor satisfy everybody. There will almost always be bloodshed or loss (sometimes right, sometimes wrong) whilst this terrorism war is going on, and it will not stop until either terrorists leave the country, or the police/MI5 get their intelligence spot on I agree, we should be allowed freedom of movement and expression, but that should be for all people, regardless of faith, race, age, political views etc... It seems as though certain people are allowed to say anything they want in regards to anything, but others aren't allowed to do the same... I will never be doing this. I do not condone the actions/policies of the BNP, and I will not be pledging my support to them or anybody who supports them.
lookwhaticando Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 I'd have thought the police in the US had to be more careful about shooting innocenets - chances of a massive lawsuit against the county, state and federal goverments would be extreme. One wrong bullet and you're in serious trouble. Or perhaps the police are better protected to take such action by law... One thing's for sure, the police in North America are respected more by the general populous than their counterparts in Britain. In any case, one has to question the ability of these S.W.A.T marksmen, though, if they need to fire 110 bullets at someone (and only hit him 68 times...) - what was wrong with just a couple of well aimed bullets in the right places?
Smudge Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 One thing's for sure, the police in North America are respected more by the general populous than their counterparts in Britain. You make a valid point. The police are everywhere here and they are not afraid to enforce the law. I visit England frequently and have to say that you don't seem to have a police force anymore. I can be there for two weeks and only see a handfull of police cars. Lots of meter maids and the odd multicoured Volvo on the M1 but rarely a law enforcer. What's going on?
Daggers Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 One thing's for sure, the police in North America are respected more by the general populous than their counterparts in Britain. I think you have to define which police in the States are the ones that are respected, who is respecting them and whereabouts they are. The donut-munching moron that arrested me in Alabama was typical of the stereotyped local cop (oaf) that is an object of derision amongst all of my American friends. I do not believe the police in California have an awful lot of respect from the communities they routinely beat up or shoot. Likewise, the cops in New Orleans are despised by the bulk of the populace for their corrupt and bigoted activities. In Carolina there is still the lag over from when the majority of cops either belonged to or failed to act against the Klu Klux Klan. I'd say that the 'cops' in the US are feared more than respected.
Daggers Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 You make a valid point. The police are everywhere here and they are not afraid to enforce the law. I visit England frequently and have to say that you don't seem to have a police force anymore. I can be there for two weeks and only see a handfull of police cars. Lots of meter maids and the odd multicoured Volvo on the M1 but rarely a law enforcer. What's going on? The falling crimes rates are testament to the fact that British policing does not have to be visible to be effective. You see so many cop cars in the States because they are all either on their way to, at or coming back from Dunkin Donuts
cisono Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 Read a point I made in my previous post and you'll see I've got the police put down as being in a no-win situation as far as the terrorist thing goes, and that they need to be 100% certain of everything before they go blasting people I don't doubt you did, and I read your previous post. I still wanted to express my opinion in a different way, though.
lookwhaticando Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 I'd say that the 'cops' in the US are feared more than respected. Fear is part of it, respect is another part of it. Sounds more like a socio-economic background issue regarding fear/respect though. The middle classes in general have respect for the police, and they often avoid illegality because they respect that the police are doing their best to keep them safe. Sending groups of 20 to 40 or even more officers to take on one nutcase with a gun in a suburban area being common practice, for example. There's also not the same disdain for traffic police as there is in the UK... that's out of respect, not fear. The poorer classes and the ethnic minorities that percieve themselves to be persecuted by the police fear them - only a total idiot would piss around with a copper because they know that the law will be enforced, and if you're the wrong side of the law you'll suffer.
Benji Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 Exactly. Because it breaches somebody's human rights <_< What a load of bollox. I'd love for our police or secret service etc to shoot rapists, peadophiles, murderers nearly 70 times, but it'd never happen I can't see how you can justify the types of people you've listed as worthy of human rights
nhfox Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 I think you have to define which police in the States are the ones that are respected, who is respecting them and whereabouts they are. The donut-munching moron that arrested me in Alabama was typical of the stereotyped local cop (oaf) that is an object of derision amongst all of my American friends. I do not believe the police in California have an awful lot of respect from the communities they routinely beat up or shoot. Likewise, the cops in New Orleans are despised by the bulk of the populace for their corrupt and bigoted activities. In Carolina there is still the lag over from when the majority of cops either belonged to or failed to act against the Klu Klux Klan. I'd say that the 'cops' in the US are feared more than respected. Excluding New York City, that is a true statement, in my opinion.
Daggers Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 I can't see how you can justify the types of people you've listed as worthy of human rights I can. Because we live in a democracy and abide by a legal system based on trial by jury. Because when there are miscarriages of justice (and there are frequent miscarriages of justice) we are then able to release wrongly convicted innocent people. Because ours is a society that allows us liberty and freedom of speech on a scale not enjoyed in most other countries. Because that is the majority of the country want and vote for. Because it is the right & humane thing to do. Because we a signatories to the Declaration of Human Rights, which states: Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association. Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. Article 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Benji Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 I dont dispute we are part of all that, but i've never understood the concept of how people who act inhumanely seek a fall back on human rights. And according to your wise copy and pasting: Article 19.Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. So lucky me
Daggers Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 I dont dispute we are part of all that, but i've never understood the concept of how people who act inhumanely seek a fall back on human rights. They don't, that's not the point, the point is that everyone has that inalienable right - and it is by acknowledging this and abiding by it that differentiates us from oppressive regimes. And, as I said, miscarriages of justice take place. Put yourself in the place of a man subjected to a false allegation of rape or child molestation. At that point you will be pretty damn glad that such a convention exists.
Benji Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 They don't, that's not the point, the point is that everyone has that inalienable right - and it is by acknowledging this and abiding by it that differentiates us from oppressive regimes. And, as I said, miscarriages of justice take place. Put yourself in the place of a man subjected to a false allegation of rape or child molestation. At that point you will be pretty damn glad that such a convention exists. Point taken, but then you look at people on the other side of the scale who are clearly and proven guilty yet through lawyers (ironic that i'm criticising people of the same profession i'm studying ) escape by whatever means, be them technicalities or undetailed human rights ''clauses''. If everyone was asked... would you rather all the ''bad'' people in the world be justly punished on the exception that a couple of innocent people will suffer, you could argue all life long. Personally, i think our penal system is unjust and it seems the word crime no longer has the same definition. I'm not saying we need to return to the days of chopping hands off for theivery, and maybe the SWAT team in this case have gone way over the top with shelling all these bullets into this man, but if it makes our world that tiny bit safer, then it's good enough for me.
Smudge Posted 7 October 2006 Posted 7 October 2006 The falling crimes rates are testament to the fact that British policing does not have to be visible to be effective. Tell that to my Dad who was mugged and robbed in broad daylight in Station Rd, Hinckley, Furthermore a very old lady was was raped and stabbed to death in the same old persons home where my parents lived.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.