The Ultimate Loss of Civil Liberties: Innocent Man Shot Dead in UK

In summary, the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian man shot dead by police in London, expressed anger and disbelief at the incident. The police, who were hunting the suspects of an attempted bomb attack, expressed regret and admitted the killing was a tragedy. There are arguments on both sides regarding the use of deadly force, but in this particular case, it is clear that the man was already immobilized and shooting him was not justifiable. Questions have been raised about why he ran and why he was wearing a winter coat in the summer, but it is confirmed that he had no connection to terrorism. The confusion and chaos of the situation likely led to his decision to run from the armed men, who he did not know were police
  • #281
Alexandra
:rolleyes: I'd hardly call the Israeli way of dealing with the situation successful - they have not, after all, managed to sort anything out, have they?

Whether they have dealt with the situation or not, is in my opinion, not the question in need. The 'Shoot-to-Kill' policy is seen as a 'tougher' policy towards terrorists and doesn't necessarily mean it has to be successful in order to be implemented.

Alexandra
The thing is, unless one understands the root causes of a problem, one cannot hope to address it and solve it.What causes terrorism? That is the question that one must ask, in my opinion.

I too agree with this view but the flaw with 'understanding the root of a problem' is that is has already been understood. Will we comply with the terrorists? I of course link this with Iraq, I perceive and link the current terrorism with the invasion of Iraq.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #282
How can somebody in there right mind, actually think that the situation in Israel is the same as the UK ? ? ? LOL... Pure fantisy...

Whether they have dealt with the situation or not, is in my opinion, not the question in need. The 'Shoot-to-Kill' policy is seen as a 'tougher' policy towards terrorists and doesn't necessarily mean it has to be successful in order to be implemented.

what is your point?

I too agree with this view but the flaw with 'understanding the root of a problem' is that is has already been understood.

What the terrorists want and the root of the problems are not the same and one!
 
  • #283
Anttech
NT = No text ... I didnt write anything because what you posted was totally absurd! What you wrote didnt deserve any comment

I thank you for clarifying the terminology.

Anttech
Let me reitterate! I haven't changed my opinion... I think your "mental lexicon" are unable to comprehende what I wrote...(or you are trolling, after re-reading what you have wrote I am thinking the latter)

You're misinterpreting information. My 'mental lexicon' response was associated with your "NT" response and not "I haven't changed my opinion". I am and was perfectly able to 'comprehend' what you wrote, and I was therefore stating that I understood your position and views on the matter.

Anttech
ehh? what are you saying? that I have changed my opinion?

No, that was a misunderstanding on my behalf, apologies.

Anttech
Adivce: don't put words in my mouth! or try to use spin on what I wrote!

I beg your pardon?
 
  • #284
No, that was a misunderstanding on my behalf, apologies.
accepted
I beg your pardon?
you are pardoned

:tongue2:
 
  • #285
Anttech
How can somebody in there right mind, actually think that the situation in Israel is the same as the UK ? ? ? LOL... Pure fantisy...

Well, if you fail to see the same scale of terror in London as there is in Israel, with all due respect, you're the one who's having a 'pure fantasy'. I have come to understand that you like to insult people without clarifying views. I don't support this kind of attitude and would appreciate further clarifications in the future.
 
  • #286
Well, if you fail to see the same scale of terror in London as there is in Israel, with all due respect, you're the one who's having a 'pure fantasy'. I have come to understand that you like to insult people without clarifying views. I don't support this kind of attitude and would appreciate further clarifications in the future.

non-clarity is your dogma not mine! My views are transparent! The situation in London is nothing like the situation in Israel, it is a total exageration... The two are not comparable!

Palistein is currently being occupied by Israel, the Israelies are being bombed weekly, and the Palisteins are being shot at weekly... 1000's of people are being killed in the ME conflict every year which has been going on since WWII...

Show me the similarities? I see none...
 
  • #287
DM said:
Alexandra


Whether they have dealt with the situation or not, is in my opinion, not the question in need. The 'Shoot-to-Kill' policy is seen as a 'tougher' policy towards terrorists and doesn't necessarily mean it has to be successful in order to be implemented.
So... You admit it's an unsuccessfull policy... WHY do you support it then?
 
  • #288
The only reason its unsuccessful is because they shot the wrong man :uhh:
 
  • #289
Art said:
In a previous thread I suggested that the terrorists goal was to marginalise the wider muslim population by driving a wedge between them and their non-muslim neighbours thus shifting the centre further to the right and so gathering new recruits who will begin to fall into the enlarged extremist far right. Current events suggest their policy is working.

I think you are right on spot here. By polarizing the relationship between the larger muslim and non-muslim countries the extreme fundamentalist organizations are effectively making reformation less popular in their respective countries. In this respect their policy seems to be working.

On the other hand, they increase the outside pressure on reform. Just taking this discussion as an example; would we be debating our ears off about how to prevent further terrorism and frequently touching issues of better socio-economic development in countries where these organizations are recruiting, if it wheren't for the terror attacks? In this respect their policy isn't working (for them, that is. For the larger population reform may just be what is needed).

I find a lot of irony here. First, the extremist are succeeding and shooting themself in the legg, as said. Second, tough measures by the west make it easier for extremist propaganda to lure young ones on the wrong path, while only 'soft' measures may actually make terrorism a rational way for political influence even for a reformistic idealist, who's goal is real development. Irony was it.
 
Last edited:
  • #290
Andy said:
The only reason its unsuccessful is because they shot the wrong man :uhh:
But you still support the actions of the police men, even though they violated the policy and killed an innocent man. Why?
 
  • #291
Andy said:
The only reason its unsuccessful is because they shot the wrong man :uhh:
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The last time I read that statement, they said it this way:

"The operation was a great success; unfortunately the patient died."

Andy, you officially just became the punchline to a philosophical joke. :rofl:
 
  • #292
Salutations!

I am Brazilian like the man killed by mistake. There is something interesting that I read here...someone mentioned that 20 C is considered a very high temperature for most of people in London (I do not remember the exact words uttered)...

Here in Brazil we got used to tolerate much higher temperatures during most of the year...30 C, 35 C and even totally extreme and infernal temperatures like 40 C (!)...so, 20 C is considered a pleasant temperature in Brazil (but not cold)...10 C is considered cold and 0 C, -5 C (typical minimum temperatures of winter in the South of Brazil) is considered VERY cold...

Regarding the death of Mr. Menezes, I see it as a sad episode. Unfortunately, the terrorist attacks in London have created the "atmosphere" that propitiated this tragic ending... :frown:



The Smoking Man said:
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The last time I read that statement, they said it this way:

"The operation was a great success; unfortunately the patient died."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
  • #293
What do you say. The Ultimate Loss of Civil Liberties??

Fox news says YES!

-------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163870,00.html

Big Brother may take away big liberties, but it’s worth it

Surrender Privacy or Your Life?
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
By Neil Cavuto

"It's the moral juggling act of our times. You surrender some privacy or you surrender your life."

"I know there's a risk Big Brother takes away big liberties. But I wouldn't bet my life on it, maybe because my life could depend on it."
-------------------------------------------------

I can imagine, if i were american and reading this i would seriusly think about killing neil cavuto!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #294
Andy, you officially just became the punchline to a philosophical joke.

You know the thread's dead when sarcasm gets lost.
 
  • #295
DM said:
Anttech


Using a stun gun on a suicide bomber?? do you know the accuracy required to stun an individual? the range? a stun gun is not a guarantee that a suicide bomber will not gain conscious and detonate the bomb.
Not wanting to pi55 on your fire here, but this is exactly what the terrorism squad did when they arrested their last suspect. In this case a) they knew who he was and b) they caught him with a rucksack on his back in his flat at 4 am. They taser'd him, if I heard right. This is presumably what people who are actually trained to deal with this kind of situation are meant to do. Although they did chuck the bag outside into the street, which seems a little weird, but hey!
 
  • #296
DM said:
Anttech


You're missing the whole point!

How would the officers distinguish him as being a suicide bomber from being a normal citizen? Stunning him?? You're biased, given that you use a lot of hindsight. In these situations you cannot 'hope' that an individual is innocent.
So what... shoot everyone who arouses suspicion on the tube just in case?!? What a wonderful world we live in right now.
 
  • #297
vanesch said:
Let's get nasty: could there have been some "jouissance factor" ?
In that, for ONCE, we are allowed to blow a f***ing desertnigger his brains out, let's not miss the opportunity ? :devil:
I'm hanging by a thread, so let's not go that way. Still, I'd definitely call 7 bullets in the brain 'getting your gun off'.
 
  • #298
As anyone of reasonable judgment knows, suicide bombing by wackos is a small security threat for every country with the sole possible exception of Israel.

The so-called "highly trained" personnell which is given the task of dealing with this annoying phenomenon are in all likelihood religious country bumpkins who are too dumb to be given solid tasks within the regular police force.
Repeatedly, they show themselves to be wholly incompetent in doing their job, not the least because their personal motivation is to "catch a bad guy" and experience the thrill of the chase, rather than making cool deliberations (they are incapable of such thinking) as to the most effective measures in order to actually protect the public as best as one can from such isolated wacko attacks.

There will be many more such examples in which the public is taken by complete surprise by a suicide bomber because the officers nominally in charge of the public's safety are incompetent in doing so, and also a lot more De Mendez cases with totally f**ked-up operations with the murder of innocents by the hands of the police as the basic result.
 
Last edited:
  • #299
Anttech
non-clarity is your dogma not mine! My views are transparent!

Suit yourself, I'm getting sick of exchanging views with a brick wall.

Anttech
The situation in London is nothing like the situation in Israel, it is a total exageration... The two are not comparable!

Is that right? 8 bombs go off in less than 2 weeks and you consider it as "London is nothing like the situation in Israel".

Anttech
Palistein is currently being occupied by Israel, the Israelies are being bombed weekly, and the Palisteins are being shot at weekly... 1000's of people are being killed in the ME conflict every year which has been going on since WWII...

And then you label yourself as 'transparent'. Read my posts; currently, the state of terror, hence fear, is in my opinion in the same scale as Israel, it doesn't mean bombs have to go off every week in order to be in the same state of terror.

Anttech
Show me the similarities? I see none...

NT, assimilation is a great tool!
 
  • #300
El Hombre Invisible
So what... shoot everyone who arouses suspicion on the tube just in case?!? What a wonderful world we live in right now.

I have addressed this point several times.
 
Last edited:
  • #301
DM said:
El Hombre Invisible


I have addressed this point several times.
Great. Now do it with a reasonable argument, because I haven't read one from anyone (not just you) yet. Quite a few people seem happy that the police did the right thing 'under the circumstances' in blowing the brains out of an innocent man because he aroused their suspicion. Take that to it's logical argument - anyone arousing suspicion on the Underground gets their brains blown out. You happy with that? If not, how can you justify one such case?
 
  • #302
El Hombre Invisible
b)they caught him with a rucksack on his back in his flat at 4 am.

:uhh:

Police sources say that Omar, dressed in shorts and a T-shirt, had been lying on a settee. He made a grab for a dark rucksack lying on the floor a couple of feet from him. One of the officers fired a 50,000-volt shock from a Taser gun at his chest amid concern that he had a device hidden inside his bag.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-1711299_2,00.html
 
  • #303
DM said:
El Hombre Invisible


:uhh:



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-1711299_2,00.html
DaMmit, you got me. It wasn't on his back. Woe is me for resorting to memory. I retract everything I ever said.

Do you never screen your arguments to ensure they have a point? What does that error on my part matter to any of the points of discussion? What does it add to the argument of whether stunning a suspect is a ridiculous idea? All you've done is post a source backing up my argument with one minor exception that doesn't actually - the bag wasn't on his back. Well done!
 
  • #304
The point ElHombre, is that individuals like DM are unable to form rational thoughts when the inevitable conclusion you must draw from rational thinking, is that , in this case, the police acted wrongly, disastrously and criminally so.

Hence, all he can come up with, is a complete muddle.
 
  • #305
arildno
The point ElHombre, is that individuals like DM are unable to form rational thoughts when the inevitable conclusion you must draw from rational thinking, is that , in this case, the police acted wrongly, disastrously and criminally so.

Another dogmatic view.

arildno
Hence, all he can come up with, is a complete muddle.

The ability to disagree doesn't mean you're right.
 
  • #307
I know I can't help being biased at the moment, so can you tell me in what sort of circumstances you think these new tactics should be employed, how sure does one need to be of intent and how imminent the threat, if at all?
 
  • #308
DM said:
arildno
The ability to disagree doesn't mean you're right.
Or, more appropriately in your case, the ability to disagree doesn't mean you're relevant. By the way, I missed a word out of my last post, further proving my fallibility. Feel free to find it and use it as an argument. Let us know when you're done.
 
  • #309
fi said:
I know I can't help being biased at the moment, so can you tell me in what sort of circumstances you think these new tactics should be employed, how sure does one need to be of intent and how imminent the threat, if at all?
Who are you addressing? The 'don't slaughter innocent commuters' contingent or the 'if in doubt, blast em' contingent?
 
  • #310
El Hombre Invisible
DaMmit, you got me. It wasn't on his back. Woe is me for resorting to memory. I retract everything I ever said.

What does it add to the argument of whether stunning a suspect is a ridiculous idea? All you've done is post a source backing up my argument with one minor exception that doesn't actually - the bag wasn't on his back. Well done!

El Hombre Invisible, I appreciate your encouragement to discuss this matter further but I made it perfectly clear where I stand in this issue. Whether you accept it or not is another thing, hence your problem. I truly respect your stance in this subject and I'm able to accept it.
 
  • #311
Sorry, your contingent, El Hombre, but I guess it could be asked of both.
 
  • #312
arildno
before trying to show yourself as a rational person with a mature intellect.

No, you're fabricating facts. You're clearly a dogmatic individual that is unable to accept and respect what other people perceive in a diversity of subjects.
 
  • #313
DM said:
arildnoNo, you're fabricating facts.
Where, dear?
 
  • #314
arildno
is that individuals like DM are unable to form rational thoughts

It's so tangible. You're dogmatic, you see yourself as always right.
 
  • #315
Well, you haven't posted any evidence about yourself to the contrary effect.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top