Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Miami shooting: No outrage?

By redelm in Op-Ed
Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 02:26:52 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

An agitated passenger was shot this week in Miami for disobeying a police order and allegedly threatening a bomb. Why is no-one upset? Are we that fearful of security that both liberty and humanity must be sacrified?


The facts I understand are: Shortly after 2pm on Wednesday 07 December 2005, Rigoberto Alpizar(44) was fatally shot on a Miami jetway by two pursuing US Air Marshals. He was very agitated and exiting the flight AA924 which he had just boarded. The marshals allege he said something to the effect that he had a bomb, was reaching inside his pack, and did not comply with their demands to stop. Other passengers deny hearing any mention of a bomb. US administration officials state the marshals were acting according to their training and approved procedures.

I'm profoundly skeptical. While I understand and agree that police (and others) may be authorized to use deadly force, this must be strictly confined to credible threat that cannot be contained any other way. This case fails in a number of important respects:

First, this incident occurred in the secure area of the airport, after all passengers had undergone detailed security screening (including removal of shoes) by the TSA. While screening isn't perfect, neither is it meaningless. With determination and cleverness, a pure high-explosive bomb might be smuggled past. But there is virtually no possibility that an anti-personnel (shrapnel) bomb could get through. The distinction is important because a HE bomb doesn't have much effect at a distance even thought it would be devastating to a wingbox or pressurized hull.

Second, the passenger was fleeing the aircraft with the alleged bomb. Heading in a direction to reduce danger. Why would a suicide bomber who'd lost his nerve take the hated device with him? What is the likelihood that a person stating "bomb" actually has one, especially after security clearance? What credible threat does that person pose in the terminal? Is it anywhere near as great as a shrapnel-armed suicide bomber at baggage check-in or security lines?

Third, these marshals are specifically trained for air security, and have limited duties permitting them to focus closely. One would expect considerable planning for these sorts of scenarios. Many people are afraid of flying (even some who know Bernouilli's Principle). Agitated behaviour is not unusual.

The marshals state they feared for their lives. This may be true, but they chose to put themselves in harm's way, first by their choice of career, then second by their choice to pursue (why not radio?). I expect such people to have reduced fear. Their chosen profession is to protect civilians. That includes suspects.

The shooting in the London Tube on 22 July 2005 is similar, but with important distinctions on all three grounds: The suspect had no kind of security searching and might very well have been carrying a shrapnel bomb. He was also heading in a direction to maximize danger and refused to stop. He was also shot by less specialized and trained police. Yes, it too was wrong. But not nearly as egregious.

The US also compares very unfavorably to the French police. In spite of extreme national tension from 5,000 car burnings over two weeks, the French police shot no-one -- certainly not from lack of weapons, and not from lack of opportunity with the arrests, but from very different rules-of-engagement.

An ugly possibility is that Mr Alpizar was unnecessarily shot in the jetway because it was convenient (minimal chance of hitting bystanders) and saved searching the terminal for him. I cannot banish the spectre from movies of a totalitarian policethug shooting a fleeing suspect he could easily have caught, as much a brutal warning as to save effort.

What I find most surprising from this incident is neither that it happened, nor the official defenses. Mistakes will happen, and people will try to cover them up. The biggest surprise is the silence from administration critics. The New York Times, Washington Post and others have been editorially silent, simply reporting facts. Such reticence is utterly out of character. Their knees ought to be jerking. For that matter, K5 and TOS ought to be in paroxysms yet are not. This is deeply disturbing. When debate stops, totalitarianism takes over.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Also by redelm


Display: Sort:
Miami shooting: No outrage? | 363 comments (338 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden)
True (1.50 / 1) (#1)
by Psychopath on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 02:29:25 PM EST

I also notice this here in Europe, in the newspaper as well as in various web boards. Most people even think it's ok to shoot a guy who threatens with a bomb even if he is mentally ill. I think that's repulsive.
--
The only antidote to mental suffering is physical pain. -- Karl Marx
ARGH (3.00 / 3) (#5)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 03:39:31 PM EST

The cognitive dissonance your comment combined with your nick is causing my hernia to inflame.

--
"What's next, sigging a k5er quote about sigging someone on k5?"


[ Parent ]
Questions (none / 0) (#45)
by catseye on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 10:36:24 AM EST

  1. How would the officers have known he was mentally ill?
  2. Even if they knew he was mentally ill, how were they to know he did not actually have a bomb?
Unfortunately, to err on the side of caution is to kill the idiot threatening with a bomb.

----------
How can we fight Islamic Fundamentalism abroad if we do not fight Christian Fundamentalism at home?
[ Parent ]
LOL Americans (1.83 / 6) (#3)
by eejit on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 03:21:27 PM EST

You piss and moan when someone has the audacity to suggest you shouldn't all be armed to the teeth, yet when someone gets shot you piss and moan that you are allowed to be armed to the teeth.

Actually, if you read the title (3.00 / 2) (#4)
by Orange Tanning Cream on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 03:24:19 PM EST

You may just find out that the author is commenting on the lack of outrage, which makes most of America perfectly consistent.

[ Parent ]
Well, (3.00 / 2) (#14)
by debillitatus on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 06:10:35 PM EST

for what it's worth, my guess is that those two sets of pissers and moaners are a bit disjoint.

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

Um... (none / 0) (#18)
by skyknight on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 06:30:19 PM EST

the debate is typically over whether civilians should be armed, not police officers.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
You're missing the point entirely. (none / 0) (#23)
by hackwrench on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 08:52:36 PM EST

There's a big difference between being armed and using the weapon. Nobody is complaining here that the Marshals were armed. The complaint is that their training didn't result in a situation where they were in control and didn't fire at the guy.

[ Parent ]
I don't know about you... (2.71 / 7) (#6)
by givemegmail111 on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 04:09:28 PM EST

...but I'm getting a little worn out of being outraged. Ever since Bush's first election it seems like there's something new every week that I should be outraged about, be it wars, torture, court nominations, or the absence of the word "Christmas" on the White House Christmas card. This incident, sad is it is, is minor compared to what else is going on in the country. There's no conspiracy here, just human error. Better to save the outrage for the truly outrageous, and there's plenty of that around.

--
McDonalds: i'm lovin' it
Start your day tastefully with a Sausage, Egg & Cheese McGriddle, only at McDonalds.
Rusty fix my sig, dammit!
No consipracy! (none / 0) (#11)
by redelm on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 05:23:54 PM EST

There may well be no consipracy. That takes talent and cooperativeness that conspirators normally lack.

What causes me the outrage is not the tragedy itself, but the lack of reaction. "Shoot first, ask questions later" seems to be acceptable Rules-of-Engagement. No one is protesting.



[ Parent ]

That's probably because it has become standard (2.16 / 6) (#12)
by thankyougustad on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 05:30:01 PM EST

practice here in the US. These kinds of shootins have been going on for longer than I have been alive. In my own city, Richmond, VA, I can think of three unarmed people shot by the police in the last five years. There is a reason they're called pigs.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Not pigs (none / 1) (#47)
by redelm on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 10:49:23 AM EST

I'm sorry, but I don't think many police officers are thugs. Even fewer where they do psych-evals. I think they're mostly dedicated people who've been put in difficult positions with unreasonable expactations. They don't need to be "lone sheriffs" or heroes, but somehow this ethos persists.



[ Parent ]

Your alternatives are idiotic. (1.88 / 26) (#8)
by kitten on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 05:09:03 PM EST

With determination and cleverness, a pure high-explosive bomb might be smuggled past. But there is virtually no possibility that an anti-personnel (shrapnel) bomb could get through.

Fine, so let's say it was "just" a high explosive. So your idea is, the marshals should have paused a moment, considered this possibility, and let things unfold. And if it had been a bomb, they could have said, "Hey, calm down, America, it was just a high explosive, there wasn't any shrapnel!"

Sure.

This may be true, but they chose to put themselves in harm's way, first by their choice of career

Inane.

then second by their choice to pursue (why not radio?).

Oh, yeah. "Marshal Adam here. Guys, I just saw a guy running around saying he's got a bomb. Could you, uh, do something about it?" "What? Go after him! Stop him!" "No, I might get hurt. You guys do it. I'll stay here and watch."

I expect such people to have reduced fear. Their chosen profession is to protect civilians. That includes suspects.

Actually, their priority is to protect the population, then the suspect. That's what cops have guns for. If a law enforcement officer sees a guy pointing a gun at someone, that guy is going to get shot to save the life of the intended victim. Such situations aren't the time to go "Er, well, maybe he won't pull the trigger, and I don't want to hurt him.."

No one is happy about what happened, but what do you suggest? SHould the cops tried to have, I don't know, tackled him and wrestle a bomb away from him? Asked him politely to stop and drop the bag? Offered to buy him a beer and talk things over?
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
Probabilities (2.00 / 2) (#10)
by redelm on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 05:21:32 PM EST

Policing can be done other than "lone sherrif". These guys have radios. The contact team should keep a suspect in visual contact, but not attempt to subdue unless this can be done safely. Other teams converge on the suspect.

As for protection, I'm quite appalled the marshals claimed to be acting out of fears for themselves, not the population. The have extraordinary armament and inmunities to protect the public. Not themselves.



[ Parent ]

Of course (2.50 / 2) (#13)
by ensign on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 05:39:34 PM EST

So far, it seems that none of the passengers corroborate the marshals' claim that the man said he had a bomb.  

They should have shot him with tranquilizers.  I'm not saying air marshals shouldn't have live rounds (though I'm thinking it--they sure won't be able to use them in the air), but why not give them at least the option of not killing someone whose guilt is hardly clear-cut?

This is especially so since this guy had already made it through airport security.  Weigh the risks--how likely is it that this guy really got a fully assembled, ready-to-detonate bomb in his bag past security, and has announced it before detonating it?

If the air marshals can't use common sense, give them tranquilizer rounds and be done with it.
Find your friends online
[ Parent ]

Good idea, but (1.15 / 13) (#17)
by kitten on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 06:27:04 PM EST

Tranquilizers might be a good idea in the future, but they didn't have them right then. They had guns, which left them with only one real option. Look, we can all sit around and say "The odds of someone getting an actual bomb past security are small," which is probably true, but in that instant when a decision has to be made you don't have time to think about it. Again, what would we have them do -- stop chasing the guy, think about those small odds, and go have a cigarette? If it had been a bomb, everyone would be screaming that they didn't shoot him when they had the chance.

Also, as an aside, the notion that one cannot fire a gun in a plane is completely false. Airplanes have regulated apertures already -- large holes that open and close, to regulate cabin pressure. Air is constantly pumped in from the engines, and to keep the plane from exploding, is vented out these apertures. If you fire a gun and blow a hole in the fuselage, then the apertures would just close more and maintain pressure. No problem. You'd have to do a lot more damage to the plane than would be possible with a few bullets.

(Also good to shut down annoying whiners who talk about how "all that recycled air" on the plane makes them sick. Recycled air, my ass. Do they really think they're breathing the same few hundred cubic feet of air with two hundred other people for five hours?)
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
We expect them to be trained to know what to do. (none / 1) (#22)
by hackwrench on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 08:45:49 PM EST

We expect them to have trained being in this situation enough times that they know what to do without having to think.

[ Parent ]
Hmm (3.00 / 2) (#26)
by Kal on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 09:58:21 PM EST

It sounds like they did just that.

[ Parent ]
Ok (3.00 / 2) (#30)
by ensign on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 12:24:03 AM EST

Point taken--they didn't have non-lethal options at the moment.  Of course, none of it can be undone, so it really makes more sense to talk about what would prevent this from happening in the future.  To my mind, tranquilizers are a decent solution (though, as an above poster pointed out, they are not entirely ideal).  

I agree that people would be calling for their heads if there had been a bomb.  I do not agree that people should.  Everything about this situation cries out that a bomb was not present (and the lack of witness corroboration suggests that there was even less to go on than the air marshals are admitting).  I do not think they should have smoked a cigarette.  I think they should have thought, though.  If you think that they cannot have enough time to think about it, I would say that makes non-lethal weaponry all the more necessary to avert precisely this kind of tragedy.

The bottom line on that score is that the argument that lethal weapons are a necessity for air marshals boils down either to a mistaken belief that only death will subdue a terrorist, or to the sentiment that punishment must be meted out on the spot.  Neither is true, so why do people hold on to this idea?

As to the guns in the plane thing, you're no doubt right (and I appreciate the correction), as I don't know the first thing about it.  If that is the case, then there's no practical reason for them not to have guns, but that was just an aside in my original post, anyway.
Find your friends online
[ Parent ]

Lethal Weapons (none / 1) (#44)
by catseye on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 10:34:37 AM EST

re: The bottom line on that score is that the argument that lethal weapons are a necessity for air marshals boils down either to a mistaken belief that only death will subdue a terrorist, or to the sentiment that punishment must be meted out on the spot.  Neither is true, so why do people hold on to this idea?

It's not true, it's not false. It's simply an opinion. It's your opinion that lethal force is not necessary. It is the government's opinion that lethal force is necessary.

Personally, I believe that officials should be allowed to use both as much and as little force as is necessary to deal with the situation. If a suspected terrorist can be subdued with a punch in the jaw and a set of handcuffs, great. If he says he has a bomb or a weapon and he's reaching into a bag, shoot him dead. If he's got his finger on a dead man switch already, proceed with caution, but try to prevent harm to people around him.

I don't buy all this "people get agitated when they fly" crap or "oops, I didn't to take my medication" crap. If you get so agitated when you fly that you might be considered a danger to others, then don't fly; there are other methods of transportation.

If people are severely mentally ill and don't take their medication, they need to know that if they have an episode on an airplane and start threatening people, they could get shot. Air Marshalls are not psychologists, nor should they be expected to be. They've got to take things at face value because the consequences if they don't are worse than the consequences if they do. The shooting death of one mentally ill man off his meds who said he had a bomb is tragic. The deaths of bystanders or of the officers if they failed to shoot and a mentally ill person really did have a bomb or weapons is inexcusable.

----------
How can we fight Islamic Fundamentalism abroad if we do not fight Christian Fundamentalism at home?
[ Parent ]

Tranqs? (1.25 / 4) (#19)
by t1ber on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 06:59:31 PM EST

That's actually naive.  If you've ever been to the dentist or had major medical procedures done, I'm sure you could tell me why.  But since you're probably not someone who has gone through that, I shall illustrate several problems:
  1.  Assuming the dose is correct for the person, it takes a bit of time for this to get through the blood stream.  It takes even longer if there have been no veins or major organs pierced by the delivery mechanism.  Fatty tissue is remarkably good at holding fluid.  Don't even think about shooting accurately in that situation.
  2.  The dose might be too small.  The person would be groggy but it's harly a problem for someone who primes a bomb by pushing the detonator.  The dead-man-switch will go off when he relases it.
  3.  The dose might be too large.  This will kill the person.  And don't forget the dead-man-switch.
  4.  If the person is allergic to the sedative, they are going to die.
The same applies for tasers or pepper spray.  There's just not enough power there to prevent someone from pressing the button (or letting it go).

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

HELLO!?! (2.50 / 2) (#21)
by BJH on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 08:11:15 PM EST

If he's got a bomb with a friggin' dead man's switch, the last thing you want to do is fucking KILL HIM, you git.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
You're funny. (2.66 / 3) (#28)
by Arvedui on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 10:30:18 PM EST

All of your pious concern about the possibility of death by incorrect dosage, which might even trigger a "dead-man-switch", proving how tranquilizer darts couldn't possibly work, it's cute. Especially since the alternative you seem to be advocating in favor of, as we've seen, is to SHOOT THEM DEAD OUTRIGHT.

[ Parent ]
Might die vs Will die (none / 1) (#43)
by catseye on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 10:24:44 AM EST

If the stated policy is to shoot to kill and a dangerous suspect is killed while resisting arrest and threatening others, then that's the end of it.

If the stated policy is to tranquilize and the tranquilization results in the death of a suspect, regardless of his level of danger, that opens the officers, the police department, and anyone else involved to both civil liability and criminal negligence.

It's impossible to have a standard tranquilizer dart that will work on everyone containing the same dosage and same drug. That's why there are anesthesiologists... so much can go wrong. You may see animals getting darted all the time on Animal Planet and doing just fine, but they don't show you the ones they accidentally kill. They don't show the veterinarian preparing the proper dosage ahead of time. It's not a one shot fits all type solution.

You start trying to tranq suspects, and they're going to die.

----------
How can we fight Islamic Fundamentalism abroad if we do not fight Christian Fundamentalism at home?
[ Parent ]

You have a strange concept of "logic". (2.00 / 2) (#51)
by BJH on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 12:02:57 PM EST


--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
Not really (none / 1) (#52)
by catseye on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 12:08:08 PM EST

If the policy is to kill them and they die, then it's a success.

If the policy is not to kill them and they die, then it's a failure.

----------
How can we fight Islamic Fundamentalism abroad if we do not fight Christian Fundamentalism at home?
[ Parent ]

Success/failure from... (none / 1) (#114)
by BJH on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:12:09 PM EST

...whose point of view? Because as far as I can see, the victim ends up dead both ways.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
The big problem (none / 1) (#65)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 04:17:06 PM EST

isn't when we kill someone with "non-lethal" measures, given that the alternative is to kill him with a bullet. The problem is when the non-lethal measures aren't enough to stop him, where a bullet would.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
shoot-to-kill vs. shoot-to-stop? (none / 1) (#39)
by dimaq on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 07:50:45 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Shooting to Stop (none / 1) (#42)
by catseye on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 10:19:46 AM EST

Your average police officer, FBI agent, Air Marshall, etc. are not snipers, do not have scopes, do not have high-precision weapons, and do not have the time to aim for a particular body part. They typically go for chest shots because it's a large target even when moving and that's going to stop the person.

If you limited the people you hired as police to marksmen, you'd have very few police.

And how do you define shooting to stop? Shoot a guy's arm and he'll use his other arm. Shoot his leg(s) and he can still use his arms. Shoot his gut, and he can still use his arms.

Shooting to stop is a nice concept, but in reality it's not feasible. There's too much danger to the officers and bystanders.

----------
How can we fight Islamic Fundamentalism abroad if we do not fight Christian Fundamentalism at home?
[ Parent ]

We need to (none / 1) (#64)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 04:13:01 PM EST

invent phasers so we can just stun the SOBs.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
point being is the number of shots (none / 0) (#130)
by dimaq on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 05:28:08 AM EST

especially compared to the london hard takedown.

[ Parent ]
Shoot to stop? (none / 1) (#180)
by Agent1 on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 02:13:43 PM EST

From the way I understand it, you're either justified in using deadly force (a gun) or you're not. Once you decide you're allowed to shoot someone, I doubt there's a lot of time left to Robocop-aim to perfectly slice off their hand and nothing else.


-Agent1
"Thats the whole point of the internet, to slander people anonymously." - Anonymous
[ Parent ]
This is a non-story (2.29 / 27) (#20)
by D Jade on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 07:10:14 PM EST

Firstly, the guy looks Spanish. He's not white so there's no reason to be outraged over his shooting. Secondly, he had bipolar so that means he was obviously crazy. Also, the fact that the White House said that the air marshalls were in the right means that they were 100 per cent right to shoot his spic ass.

See, if you think that they were wrong then you hate America. You must be a Muslim to think that shooting a non-white person (in any situation) is wrong. And well, obviously if you are Muslim, then you are a terrorist and you must be shot as well.

Also, his name sound kind of Arabic. Alpizar? Sounds like an Al Quaeda operative to me. You should be grateful that the air marshalls took his Jihad burning ass down and saved you and your countrymen from certain death due to the apocalypse he would have unleashed... You do realise that these suicide bombers carry nukes instead of C4 now, don't you?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive

Kuro5hin is dying (none / 1) (#77)
by killmepleez on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 05:49:07 PM EST

After only paying attention to K5 three or four times in the last two months, I can honestly say that seeing this comment with a rating of 2.50 says a lot about where this site has gone in the last few years.

__
"I instantly realized that everything in my life that I thought was unfixable was totally fixable - except for having just jumped."
--from "J
[ Parent ]
I think it got a high rating for its sarcasm (1.50 / 1) (#101)
by D Jade on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:21:40 PM EST

Everyone knows that I'm a bleeding heart liberal that hates freedom and loves terrorists.

My comment is intended as sattire and I think people rate such comments as three because it makes them laugh because of it's ludicrous arguments.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Maybe it has always been the same old K5 (none / 0) (#189)
by killmepleez on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 04:53:32 PM EST

And it's me that has changed.
All I know is, somewhere in the last few months I fell out of love with this place. And my boyfriend.

Maybe there's a connection.

__
"I instantly realized that everything in my life that I thought was unfixable was totally fixable - except for having just jumped."
--from "J
[ Parent ]
Maybe your boyfriend (none / 1) (#196)
by D Jade on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 05:38:58 PM EST

Started posting on K5 and it just wasn't the same anymore...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
LOL @ two weeks later (none / 0) (#361)
by killmepleez on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 02:49:17 PM EST

Shows how much this site has nearly completely dropped off my map.

And no, my ex was not the type to get involved in forums like this. All his online time was spent browsing porn and cruising for hookups, which is half the reason I dumped him.

__
"I instantly realized that everything in my life that I thought was unfixable was totally fixable - except for having just jumped."
--from "J
[ Parent ]
Race (none / 0) (#328)
by eternauta3k on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 04:46:13 PM EST

I know most of the post isn't serious, but since when are Spanish people not white (well, most of them)?

[ Parent ]
The French police kill people all the time (2.20 / 5) (#24)
by thankyougustad on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 09:32:56 PM EST

Run this page through babelfish. We see that on 18 décembre 1997, 16 décembre 1998, 17 septembre 2000, and on 3 janvier 2002, the French police killed unarmed young people. The French police are as terrible as the American ones.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

Ce n'est pas possible (none / 1) (#32)
by nlscb on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 02:04:12 AM EST

Les Francais, c'est manifique. Les Americans baiseurmere rouges de cou c'est merde. Les Periodes de York Neveau, c'est toujours vraiment.

Cleary, this is just another tactic by Fox News to work for big oil to distract the idiotic American public from the Bush Reichministration.

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange
[ Parent ]

I have no idea what any of that means, (none / 0) (#68)
by thankyougustad on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 04:36:25 PM EST

and I'm not sure what your point (if any) is.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Vous ne comprez pas ma Franglais? (none / 0) (#115)
by nlscb on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:14:29 PM EST

Mon Dieu! L'Arrogance Grande Francais, c'est Morte!

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange
[ Parent ]

Police shootings statistics (none / 1) (#63)
by jobi on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 04:05:50 PM EST

Pop quiz: How many people did American police kill between December 18, 1997 and January 3rd, 2002?

You don't know? Very few do, and that's because no-one seems to be counting. Hard numbers are very hard to come by.

But here's a few interesting fact snippets:
"In the last five years, D.C. officers shot and killed 57 people - three more than police reported in Chicago, which has three times the police force and five times the population. During that period, D.C. officers were involved in 640 shooting incidents - 40 more than the Los Angeles Police Department, which has more than double the officers and serves six times the population. Since 1990, Washington police have shot and killed 85 people."

"We shoot too often, and we shoot too much when we do shoot," said Executive Assistant Chief of Police Terrance W. Gainer
source

"the number of "justifiable" police killings has not increased since 1976, averaging 373 a year"
source

As a comparison, British police have shot exactly 30 people since 1993 (source)

If you're an American you could perhaps console yourself with the fact that your police officers probably show more restraint than those of South Africa, in which 4651 shooting incidents were recorded over the 1996-1998 period, (source) even though that fact might not be anything to write home about.

---
"[Y]ou can lecture me on bad language when you learn to use a fucking apostrophe."
[ Parent ]
Police brutality (none / 0) (#67)
by thankyougustad on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 04:35:40 PM EST

as far as I'm concerned police killings are almost never justified. I'm not going to play the blame game though. I'm not a cop and would never want to be one (on the other hand, I wish I never had to interact with them). My point is not to vilify the American police, I believe that aside from South Africa, the Brazilian Police are pretty brazen killers. I bet the Chinese are, too. The point is, the article's author is attempting to point out how terrible the American Police are by comparing them to the French, which is laughable. In addition, he implies the French police never kill, which is clearly untrue.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
So even more unusual (none / 0) (#81)
by redelm on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 06:45:27 PM EST

Thank you for pointing out the French police are not uniformly humane. I did _NOT_ mean to imply that!

But it makes their recent restraint during the car burnings even more remarkable. Very likely, they were given different RoE by French leadership. Not Sarkozy, of course, who seems to have lost the internal debate.



[ Parent ]

Abuses are universally the norm, not the exception (none / 1) (#85)
by thankyougustad on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 07:10:10 PM EST

I do think they admit to themselves that outright brutality, although it seems simple, is hardly subtle, and can does a lot more practical (and not just human) damage than good. My point was to illustrate what I see as a universal human problem: give a small, usually not to bright, segment of the population 'authority' and the means to enforce this arbitray, self-given authority, and abuses will be the norm, not the exception.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
I find lots of things going on in America idiotic (2.00 / 3) (#25)
by vadim on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 09:42:02 PM EST

But this actually doesn't sound like something to get outraged about.

Sure, it wasn't the ideal outcome. But it's not something unexpected, or even something I could say was the entirely wrong way to handle the situation.

There are a number of dumb things you can do that will result in your death, such as jumping in front of a bus, or implying you're about to seriously harm people while around armed agents, and I think that most people will agree that being outraged about when the most logical outcome happens is not very sensible.

Sure, the guy might have not been completely sane. That's a sad thing. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect that the US Air Marshals would just let the guy run around the airport while they call a psychologist to make sure.

This is of course, unless I'm missing something crucial here.
--
<@chani> I *cannot* remember names. but I did memorize 214 digits of pi once.

No one is outraged (2.37 / 8) (#29)
by Sairon on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 12:20:12 AM EST

because its simple logic. Shouting "fire" in crowded places in criminal even if you aren't setting a fire. Shouting "bomb" indicates you have one. Air Marshalls shoot people that are likely to have bombs. People aren't outraged because it just makes sense.

Jared

I disagree (2.00 / 2) (#72)
by thankyougustad on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 04:45:39 PM EST

I think it makes little sense. I'm not outraged because I'm not surprised, and this kind of thing has become fairly common here. Florida is the state home to troopers who tased a pregnant woman who wouldn't get out of her car last spring.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
So basically what you are saying is... (none / 0) (#356)
by joto on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:12:11 PM EST

...that it is somehow wrong to kill people threatening with bombs? So what would you have them do? Ask them nicely to lie down so they could be arrested? Sorry, the officers did just that. And when the person didn't comply, they followed up with the next logical step. You can argue that the officers perhaps should have tried using other forms of non-lethal force, but if you are afraid that a bomb might go off, a gun seems to be a pretty reasonable choice.

I watched the link of the taser/woman incident too (don't know where you got the "pregnant" bit from though, she certainly didn't look pregnant to me, and the article states she was on her way to a beauty contest). The woman acted ridiculously from the first moment, throwing accusations at the policeman, who gave her a pretty clear and understandable explanation for why she was getting pulled over.

The woman got clear instructions to put down her cell-phone and get out of the car. As she failed to comply with them, the policemen tried to gently pull her out of the car. Since she refused that too, by pulling back, the policemen tried to coerce her by threatening to tase her. This was repeated three times.

At this moment, it would still be possible for the policemen to choose other forms of coercion/violence to get the women out of the car, but it is doubtful if it would have resulted in any greater success. Who knows what mentally unstable people (which she acted like at the moment) will try to do? She even admits that the reason she was on the phone was to get her boyfriend down to the scene, making it even more chaotic for the policemen there.

This taser incident might have been solved better in theory, but given that the policemen didn't have the information we in hindsight have, I'd agree with the instructor commenting on the video, and say that the policement acted exemplary.

[ Parent ]

In the UK at least (none / 0) (#363)
by procrasti on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 07:34:38 AM EST

(I didn't watch the video) You can refuse to get out of your car and legally  there is nothing the police can do unless they arrest you. (Very few people know this). Of course, I learnt this from an ex-traffic cop who had pulled this stunt on a much lower ranking officer. I'm sure if I tried this any, number of other coercive pressures could be applied, and I'd probably end up in jail.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
What kind of foolish thinking is that? (none / 0) (#357)
by Your_Mom on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 09:45:51 PM EST

Do you really think that the air marshall (that travels all over the world) thought to himself "Gee, I'm in Florida, I can shoot someone? Like the previous poster, it looks like the "lady" had it coming to her. It's a shame that things like this have to happen, but that's the cost of doing business.

[ Parent ]
I think the thing is, (3.00 / 9) (#31)
by daani on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 12:30:59 AM EST

that these Air Marshall's fucked up. Badly. But even the American press are having trouble getting from this to "the whole system's a bad idea and it's largely Bush's fault". Since they can't draw that conclusion, the story becomes uninteresting. Since nobody is allowed to know anything about air-marshalls, they can't even really report on what actually happened (the media's fallback strategy when they can't nail a public figure).

As usual, the real story here is the amount and type of people who have come out and said "He deserved it ha ha ha what an idiot....". Assholes.

I think it's a shame (1.57 / 7) (#33)
by IceTitan on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 02:59:03 AM EST

that they couldn't just shoot him for being a crazy loon. I bet he'll be chocked up as a Darwin Award nominee.
Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Look at the WWII concentration camps... (1.75 / 4) (#35)
by bighappyface on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 03:16:44 AM EST

...you can get used to anything.

You get outraged, and outraged, and outraged, and the crimes and atrocities keep growing, and suddenly you find yourself not really giving a fuck.

no one cares because (1.66 / 3) (#37)
by minerboy on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 06:44:27 AM EST

He was trying to cut in line. You are all familiar with what happens on planes when they get to the gate. everyone stands up and rushes into the aisle, then stands there for a good 15 minutes while everyone in front off you gets stuff out of the overhead. This guy clearly thought he found a way to move quickly through the crowd, but no one likes a cutter, so no one cares.



Rules of engagement (3.00 / 3) (#38)
by squigly on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 07:14:51 AM EST

The Air Marshalls shouldn't have had to consider a large wieght of evidence.  There should be a list of very specific reasons they may open fire.

It's a little unclear exactly where he was,but it sounds like he was on a large open area of tarmac, away from other civilians.  If so, there was plenty of time to shout a warning,  fire a warning shot, and possibly to allow airport security to surround the guy.  

I don't actually blame the air marshalls.  They had to make a judgement call.  They should not have had to in this situation.  This sounds like it should have been predictable enough to include in training.  People may well be agitated on planes.  They may have explosives, but it's easy to determine the risk based on typical explosives.  The amount of decision making required by men on the ground should be kept to a minimum.  They will make bad decisions.

Warning shot? (none / 0) (#48)
by Kal on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:33:31 AM EST

What do you fire a warning shot at? Even pistol bulltes can travel a long way.

[ Parent ]
Glasers (3.00 / 3) (#84)
by redelm on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 07:04:43 PM EST

Not that I'm in favor of warning shots, but in this case they're probably less hazardous than usual. Those marshals should be armed with Glasers or some other frangible bullet, at least for the the first few rounds. Fire one of these into the floor and it goes splat.



[ Parent ]

Hrm (none / 0) (#116)
by Kal on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:21:51 PM EST

I've never fired a Glaser round to see but aren't those fragements still going to ricochet? Admittedly they're not anywhere near as dangerous as a bullet flying off somewhere but they're designed to break up inside something be it a wall, person, or whatever. Shooting at tarmac or a concrete floor doesn't seem like it'd make it go splat all that much. Are Air Marshals actually armed with Glasers anyway or are they carrying more standard ammunition?

[ Parent ]
No idea (none / 0) (#245)
by squigly on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 06:40:35 AM EST

I'm just speculating.  There has to be some way to deal with someone who is no yet a major immediate risk other than a fatal shot.  Did they should a verbal warning?  Did they aim for the leg?  Is the risk of the air marshalls missing as great as the risk of firing a warning shot into the air, or even in roughly the direction of the suspect?  

I'm sure there has to be some means of stopping a potentially innocent suspect other than a lethal shot in this sort of instance.  

[ Parent ]

Not really. (none / 0) (#258)
by Kal on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 02:37:31 PM EST

Trying to shoot a moving target is hard enough, let along trying to shoot them in one of the smaller areas. People are trained to fire at the center of mass, the chest area, for a reason. You want those bullets to stay in what you're shooting at so they aren't a danger to anything behind your target. Once you fire you're responsible for that bullet and anything it hits whether through missing or over penetration.

Even COM shots aren't immediately fatal though unless you hit the heart. Most people who are shot do not die.

I'd be curious to know what weapons they were firing and how many shots they actually fired at him.

[ Parent ]
In this day and age (3.00 / 3) (#40)
by QuantumFoam on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 08:16:40 AM EST

In this day and age, yelling anything about a bomb in an airport is pretty much the dumbest thing you can do. Even dumber is running off of the plane onto the jetway and repeating to people with guns pointed at you that you have a bomb, then reaching into the satchel you're carrying. If you ask anyone what is likely to happen to you if you do this, they will tell you that you will be shot. That's why there's no outrage.

What happens if you bust into a police station with a gun drawn, shouting that you are there to kill them all and pointing your gun at the first person you see? What happens if you go into Compton wearing a Klan outfit, shouting rascist remarks at the top of your lungs and pulling a knife at the first guy that confronts you? What happens if you jump off of a cliff? In all these cases, the situation might be resolved in a way that leaves you breathing, but the odds aren't that great.

The Miami Herald claims that the man hadn't been taking medication for his bipolar disorder. If he was not fully in control of himself, then he does deserve a bit of sympathy, but not much. If not taking his meds could cause behavior this erratic, he should have either taken them or committed himself to an institution, which exist both to prevent people from being a threat to society and from society being a threat to them.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!

My pet theories (3.00 / 2) (#122)
by sholden on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 01:45:41 AM EST

Assumption one: he had just returned from overseas and probably run out of medication, either due to bad planning or due to staying longer than expected, or simply due to airport baggage screw ups.

Assumption two: he had a panic attack on the plane. His panic attack may have even been centered around there being a bomb on the plane (hence he may have said something like "there's a bomb").

If he's having a full blown panic attack, nothing short of physical force is going to stop him getting off that plane, he's not going stop because someone tells him too even if that someone has a gun pointed at him.

The big issue in my mind is how does one tell a terrorist from a sky marshall? If someone pulls a gun on a flight and heads towards the front of the plane, should you try and take them out to prevent them turning the plane into a missile, or should you do what the nice man says?

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
The Marshal will be a tough looking white guy. (none / 0) (#251)
by Neolith on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 09:51:29 AM EST

Or possibly a handsome, well dressed black man.  Haven't you seen 24?

[ Parent ]
I'm outraged we're paying for so many Air (1.80 / 5) (#41)
by Adam Rightmann on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 08:53:31 AM EST

Marshalls. They're a huge waste of my tax dollars.

Since 9/11, the hijacking paradigm has been shifted. Unless hijackers have a way to kill every passenger on the plane, the passengers will attack them and overpower them, since they'll likely die if they don't.

Unless the hijackers can smuggle a few machine pistols and several hundreds rounds on the plane, they'll shortly end up dead or subdued by the rightous wrath of the God fearing passengers.

Of course, if it's a European carrier, where the majority of passengers are modern, scientificly bred pacifists, instead of violent vengeful Americans, nothing will happen.

Illusions of security (3.00 / 3) (#60)
by LilDebbie on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 02:15:06 PM EST

are surprisingly effective for real security.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Theres nothin wrong about.. (none / 0) (#98)
by The Amazing Idiot on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:00:26 PM EST

Being a Vengeful American!

Now hand me that shotgun 'n' some shells! I gots some bidness with McCoys down the street.

[ Parent ]

I fear no manner of god. (none / 0) (#112)
by IceTitan on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:05:51 PM EST

And I will kill at my discretion.
Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
[ Parent ]
this is no amadou diallo (1.87 / 8) (#49)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:50:17 AM EST

if amadou diallo had yelled "i've got a gun" and then reached in his pockets, it wouldn't be the same

amadou diallo just reached into his pockets and the officers saw something shiny, that's it

so the resulting hailfire of bullets was criminal

but here we have a guy going "i have a bomb!" repeatedly, and ignoring the officers repeatedly, then reaching into his luggage

the resulting bullets are not criminal

welcome to reality

you're probably the kind of person who thinks 9/11 is all the government's fault for having such shoddy security

damned if you do, damned if you don't


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Bomb? (3.00 / 2) (#54)
by bml on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 12:21:21 PM EST

A lot of people here seem to be taking for granted that the guy yelled the word "BOMB!!1!" repeatedly. I would ask you to ponder over the following points:
  • Apparently none of the passengers in the flight heard him say anything about a bomb.
  • The whole situation was extremely inconsistent with the guy actually having a bomb (having passed the security checks and running away from the plane)
  • That would be the perfect justification for having shot the guy dead, wouldn't it?
In all likelihood, the "bomb" excuse was concocted post hoc to try to cover a major cock-up on behalf of a couple of trigger-happy agents.


The Internet is vast, and contains many people. This is the way of things. -- Russell Dovey
[ Parent ]
The devil's in the details (none / 0) (#55)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 12:29:24 PM EST

If the guy WAS yelling about a bomb, the marshalls were right to shoot him (unless he was complaining about the latest Hollyweird movie). Otherwise, heads should roll over this.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
I agree partially (none / 1) (#56)
by bml on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 12:37:20 PM EST

Even if the guy was really yelling he had a bomb, there were still a lot of signs indicating he didn't have one, such as his running away, his wife running behind him yelling he was sick, etc etc. So probably they still shouldn't have shot... but I don't think anyone could really blame them for doing so.

In my opinion, the training of an Air Marshall should focus mainly on how to deal with these "false positives". Obviously you are going to have a lot more cases like this than actual bomb-bearing terrorists.

The Internet is vast, and contains many people. This is the way of things. -- Russell Dovey
[ Parent ]

Can't take the risk (2.66 / 3) (#58)
by LilDebbie on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 01:18:09 PM EST

While a false positive such as this is tragic, it's a lot better than a false negative. One of the main reasons why this isn't a big deal in America is that we realize that people have a responsibility to work with our security officers and that there are some behaviors that are unacceptable in certain situations.

Even before 9/11, you did not talk about bombs on airplanes or in airports. You just didn't, because the people working security need to paranoid in order to do their jobs effectively and can't be bothered investigating your dumb ass because you feel the need to make a point about free speech.

Likewise, when a federal agent is yelling at you to "stop or we will shoot," you do what he fucking he tells you and bitch about the legitimacy of his actions later.

And if your husband can't control himself on a plane without his medication, you make sure he has his medication or you don't get on the fucking plane.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

Agreed, but (none / 0) (#148)
by bml on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:34:50 AM EST

Remember that we're elaborating on the "bomb" hypothesis, which in all likelihood didn't really happen.

The Internet is vast, and contains many people. This is the way of things. -- Russell Dovey
[ Parent ]
That's for investigators to determine (none / 0) (#168)
by LilDebbie on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 11:15:34 AM EST

Until then, you're just burning strawmen.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
sometimes (none / 1) (#170)
by zenofchai on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 12:00:25 PM EST

when someone even in uniform yells "I am a federal agent, stop or I will shoot" -- they are lying, and just want to rob you. obviously that statement has no bearing here, just a general statement. when the police stop acting like paramilitary guerrillas, breaking down doors in the middle of nights, etc, then we can talk about whether one should or shouldn't stop running (or actively defend themselves) when accosted by someone pointing a gun at them.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]
Generally (none / 0) (#259)
by LilDebbie on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 02:48:46 PM EST

if someone yells "stop or I'll shoot," you should stop anyone, regardless of whether or not they're a criminal.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
hell no (none / 1) (#312)
by zenofchai on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 07:24:43 AM EST

if someone yells "stop or I'll shoot" and there is decent cover, you take cover, draw, and tell them to stop or you'll shoot.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]
But (none / 0) (#317)
by Cro Magnon on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 09:24:11 AM EST

what if that guy really IS a cop, and had a legitimate reason to stop you?
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
The courts give leeway (none / 0) (#320)
by LilDebbie on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 10:31:53 AM EST

with regards to your initial reaction to police, depending on the situation of course. For example, if a plain clothes officer pulls a gun on you and says, "stop or I'll shoot," the courts will forgive you for being leery of him until he provides proof of his police status.

Of course, he still has the right to shoot at you if you pull a gun, but at least you won't get into legal trouble for pulling it (assuming you're legally carrying, of course).

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

then hopefully cooler heads prevail (none / 1) (#321)
by zenofchai on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 11:22:27 AM EST

example:

cop: "Stop or I'll shoot"
me: dives behind footlocker "Stop or I'll shoot"
cop: takes a bit of cover "I'm a police officer, drop your weapon"
me: "I'm not a criminal I just don't want to be shot"
cop: "Then come out with your hands up"
me: "How do I know whether you are a cop or just someone who wants to shoot me"
cop: "Good question -- sit tight, I'll call in a uniformed officer."
me: "Sounds good, let's just take it easy"

time passes

me: "hey, you got a light?"
cop: "sure" passes lighter "can I bum a smoke?"
me: lights up "sure" tosses back lighter and pack of (insert brand of cigarettes)
cop: "nice, unfiltered, thanks" lights up

time passes

cop: takes last drag of cigarette "ever wonder what it all means, man?"
me: sage nod "yeah, man, all the time"
cop: "damn I'm hungry. hey, wtf kind of cigarettes were those?"
me: silence

time passes
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]

Very true (none / 0) (#319)
by LilDebbie on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 10:27:06 AM EST

My bad.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
his wife could have been with the terrorists $ (none / 0) (#59)
by self anonymized on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 02:13:25 PM EST



[ Parent ]
'those peanuts are DA BOMB!' (none / 1) (#69)
by thankyougustad on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 04:39:15 PM EST

is what he actually said.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
What if he was yelling bomb? (1.50 / 2) (#70)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 04:40:15 PM EST

I mean, he was a nervous nutcase. Perhaps he was worried that there was a bomb, and he was trying to escape (though everything I read said he said nothing like that at all).

Does someone who uses magical code words become more of a threat somehow? Even if he was, we now have a bombless crazy man who uses the word, as our single example of whether that word even means anything threatening.

Worse, we have numerous examples of real terrorists keeping their mouth shut, so they can blow things up.

In other words, even if someone is screaming the word "BOMB" at the top of their lungs, it's worthless as an indicator of intent or threat.

These were two retard thugs with guns and way too much authority, who somehow stumbled into something they'd never be competent for. And how can it be any different? Anyone with intelligence, or intuition, or any kind of useful insight would never want to be a sky marshal. We like to think we're getting Kiefer Sutherland aka Jack Bauer, and we're really getting Barney Fife's inbred cousin.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

man you're retarded (none / 1) (#106)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:57:01 PM EST

crazy person acting like crazy person != terrorist

yes, you win, i agree

crazy person = just as dangerous as a terrorist

you apparently don't understand that


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Um. (none / 0) (#111)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:04:55 PM EST

Crazy person = determined fanatic with guns/knives/bombs who is trying to crash the plane on modern jetliners with barricaded cockpit doors?

At most, the people around him were in danger of getting beat up, and probably never even that.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

nope, you're still retarded (none / 1) (#123)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 03:25:43 AM EST

pop quiz hot shot! you have 3 seconds, which is more dangerous to you:

"hi, i'm going to kill you in the name of islam"

"hi, i'm going to kill you because the roll of toilet paper in the mens room just told me to"

you have no hindsight, you only have a moment in time

ready to answer?

go!

3, 2, 1...


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Neither. (none / 0) (#149)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:43:46 AM EST

They are just words. We should be hiring people capable of knowing that within your 3 second time limit, not retards who get scared and shoot whatever moves.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]
sticks and stones will break my bones (none / 0) (#155)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:02:54 AM EST

but words will never hurt me

wow, i learn a lot on k5! (snicker)

ok, now the guy who wants to kill you raises a gun and points it at you

continue with my re-education of the proper thing to do please...


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You mean that it requires special.. (none / 0) (#159)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:19:02 AM EST

Training to tell the difference between words and a gun?

Or that shooters telegraph having a gun by using magical code words? Because I've heard no such thing. The emotional thing to do when someone screams the word "gun" is to panic, the logical thing to do is ignore that, and assess what's happening.

Don't look nervous when flying on the same plane as Air Marshal CTS folks, anxiety is a surefire sign that you're a turrist!

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

you're utterly insane (none / 0) (#160)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:24:12 AM EST

so somebody is acting crazy, keeps saying he has a bomb, then reaches for his backpack, repeatedly ignoring requests to stop

how do bombs work fool?

you're saying that the responsible thing to do is assume he is NOT about to set off a bomb?

do you live on the same planet as me?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Heh. (3.00 / 2) (#232)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:26:59 PM EST

so somebody is acting crazy, keeps saying he has a bomb, then reaches for his backpack, repeatedly ignoring requests to stop

For a moment, I will ignore what really happened, and assume that this is exactly what went down.

Let's see, if I hear someone screaming that, I'm not going to take them completely seriously. Usually, people who do have bombs and want to blow things up without interference are quiet. If he does have it, and is announcing it, it might be better to try and defuse the situation other ways, forgive the pun.

But wait, given that suicide bombers don't want interference, given that people scream bomb when they themselves fear such a device is present and are panicing, and given his location (past all security checkpoints), I think I'd have to see him rip open his vest with the wires and dynamite before I was sure, or act in a deliberate, non-paniced manner (bomber says, you even know about it, but you can't stop me, and calmly reaches toward the button).

how do bombs work fool?

Any number of ways. There are more ways for them to be triggered than there are recipes for chicken, for christ's sake. How do we know that he isn't wearing an ankle bracelet that checks for a pulse, and as soon as his is gone, kaboom! How do we not know that it's not on a timer, and even he can't trigger it early... in which case he's more useful alive.

you're saying that the responsible thing to do is assume he is NOT about to set off a bomb?

To be safe, let's assume everyone is. Anyone reaches into a purse, bam, headshot. Oh, you were only scratching your balls, Mr. Vaguely-Arab-Looking? Oops, my bad. We can just start shooting everyone. It accomplishes the same thing, that is, shooting people who are not suicide bombers. Hell, we might (astronomically small chance) get an actual bomber, after murdering a few hundred thousand of our citizens.

The responsible thing to do is not be a cretinous goon without an iota of:

  • Common sense
  • Intuition
  • Cleverness
  • Insight
  • Calm, deliberate manner
  • Excessive training, not only of procedure, but of your very mind itself
And then go off to be a Air Marshal. By Gods, people should be afraid of flying, I sure as hell was my first time, and I still am. Statistics be damned, there's not alot keeping you alive up there in the air. Am I surprised that one of the few things that is, is a pilot that has tens of thousands of hours in the air, often on that very model of jet? How much you want to bet the Air Marshals only need a few months of simulation training, and that nothing more than "You have to quickly pull your gun and shoot him from an angle that minimizes airframe damage."

do you live on the same planet as me?

Yes, but it's an accident of birth. It's a big planet, ~8000 miles in diameter, so in theory I should be fine even with you sharing it... problem is, there are too many reactionary ijits like you. Millions upon millions.

I'll leave you with this parting thought... the methods you condone have killed an innocent, if nervous, man. Decades from now, they won't have saved a single flight, or a single life. This is my prediction.

The methods I suggest don't even have to save a single flight now, to be superior, they only have to keep from killing nervous/mentally ill people.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

it's very simple retard (none / 0) (#283)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:34:31 PM EST

if you indicate you have a bomb on airplane, i expect you to be shot

welcome to reality

if you don't indicate you have a bomb on an airplane, you have nothing to worry about

WHY you indicate you have a bomb on an airplane: because you have a mental disorder, is all very tragic

but expecting people to have insight into your head as to whether you are just crazy or genuinely malevolent is not a valid expectation of this world

in short, you have standards of behavior for our police that are impossible to live up to in reality, and depend upon levels of insight into people's behavior which no one has

the solution?

JUST DON'T FUCKING INDICATE YOU HAVE A BOMB ON AN AIRPLANE!

if you DO, you will be SHOT

and if that makes me a fascist reactionary judgmental busy body in your judgment, then you really are quite deluded


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

We've been over this. (none / 0) (#284)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:45:22 PM EST

if you indicate you have a bomb on airplane, i expect you to be shot

Saying you have one is never a good indicator. This is historically true. It's no indicator at all, actually.

Muttering the word bomb, outside of the context of "I have a bomb" is even less of an indicator.

And considering that the syllable "bom" is part of many words, both in english and foreign languages, you'd have to not just be stupid, but CTS stupid to think otherwise.

Being a reactionary fool and spouting off "that's just how it is, and how it should be blahblah blah blah" doesn't change any of this.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

yes, you can attack the premise (none / 0) (#285)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:54:34 PM EST

but in the incident we are talking about, the guy clearly indicated he had a bomb a number of times

so go ahead and attack whether he did that or not all you want

if you can prove he never actually said he had a bomb, you win the argument

so good luck, loser

because it's quite clear what he said, a number of times

why do you think you are proving anything by depicitng what actually happened in any other way than the way it actually happened?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No he didn't. (none / 0) (#286)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 06:11:58 PM EST

He probably never said the word "bomb" at all. If he did, he definitely didn't clearly say "I have a bomb" or any reasonable variant of it, not even ambiguous statements "like there's a bomb on this plane" (which doesn't mean he says he has one, only that he's irrationally afraid that to be the case).

Can you prove he said it? Can you offer any compelling evidence? The only witnesses who definitely say that he said that, are also in trouble if he didn't. So they have a reason to lie. Any other potential witnesses were tainted by ridiculous interrogation, in which the investigators used the term "b-word" as if they weren't adults or something.

And in case you forgot, it's not up to me to prove he didn't say it, it's up to you to prove that he did. Unless your criteria for guilt is really fucked up.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

you win (none / 0) (#287)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 06:29:06 PM EST

the holocaust never happened

and we never went to the moon

and jews did 9/11

and the mob shot jfk

and roosevelt knew about pearl harbor beforehand

etc., etc.

as soon as we're ready to discredit evidence, the whole world makes a lot more sense!

dude, i'm totally with you!

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Evidence? (none / 0) (#292)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 07:53:37 PM EST

the holocaust never happened

Are you saying that there is as much evidence that he said the word "bomb" as there is evidence that millions of jews and other nazi undesirables were systematically murdered?

and we never went to the moon

Are you saying that there is as much evidence that he said the word "bomb" as there is evidence that the Apollo program built giant rockets that at the very least sent machines to the moon, arguably with 3 people aboard, on more than one occassion?

and jews did 9/11

Well, here is something that has as much evidence. Unfortunately, a reasonable person might opine that it's equally likely that he said the word as much as that he didn't say that word... but no reasonable people think Mossad agents impersonated saudi nationals and crashed jetliners into the WTC. Using this as an example is one fallacy or another, don't make me look up just which.

and the mob shot jfk

There is some evidence of the mob being involved at least indirectly. And probably as many witnesses. Not that far-fetched, unless you twist my "involved indirectly" into a nutball conspiracy theory.

and roosevelt knew about pearl harbor beforehand

This isn't altogether implausible. However I'm aware of no evidence whatsoever that is a smoking gun for this theory.

as soon as we're ready to discredit evidence, the whole world makes a lot more sense!

You mean, as soon as you're willing to assume that there is evidence just because you caught the newsflash on CNN. The few eyewitnesses that the press has spoken to about the incident are 100% certain that not only did they not hear him say the "b-word" but that there was no time at which he might have said it that they couldn't have heard. They have no reason to lie about it, even though it might be more convenient to do so.

Add to that the number of fascism-apologists like yourself, and it's easy to believe that it's at least possible these air marshals were hotheads and over-reacted. Compare that to my opinion that A) he didn't use that word and B) even if he did, it was still over-reaction.

I'm trying to figure out how absence of conclusive evidence this early in the investigation favors your nutjob assertions, but makes my consistent opinions absurd.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

dude, i totally agree with you (none / 0) (#294)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:09:34 PM EST

we don't have to confront issues in our lives

all we have to do is change our source of news until we find one that fits our preconceived notions, and voila, no conflict

after all, all major news sources are just sources of fascist propaganda, we all know that

before talking to you, i thought i had to confront issues in this world

now i know i just have to choose my source of propaganda carefully, and i never have to confront anything that conflicts with my worldview ever again

i can't thank you enough!

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Funny. (none / 1) (#306)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 10:25:58 PM EST

all we have to do is change our source of news until we find one that fits our preconceived notions, and voila, no conflict

You speak of preconcieved notions and propaganda. And yet, you're somehow immune to this possibility?

Were magical "always right" powers bestowed to you by a deity? Perhaps aliens landed and gave you a mystic ring of power, or a superhero suit.

The only point of fact I'm disputing is that he may not have used the word "bomb". I still concede that he might have, it's not clear yet (might never be, though). You're the one that is absolutely sure that he did.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

the source of my magical power (none / 0) (#325)
by circletimessquare on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 04:10:29 PM EST

actually, it's not a mystic ring or a superhero suit i possess, it's a magical knife

;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Occam's Razor does not support you. (none / 0) (#330)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:04:31 PM EST

My theory allows for stupidity. Yours insists that everyone was perfectly competent. Guess which is a simpler explanation.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]
a little handy guide for you (1.75 / 4) (#66)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 04:23:24 PM EST

reality

fantasy

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

-1 too concise for cts (none / 1) (#73)
by Sgt York on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 04:47:52 PM EST


There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Encourage (3) (none / 1) (#147)
by bml on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:31:54 AM EST

Pop interpretation of Occam's Razor + Jodie Foster

The Internet is vast, and contains many people. This is the way of things. -- Russell Dovey
[ Parent ]
most americans are relieved (2.25 / 4) (#50)
by army of phred on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:59:29 AM EST

that it wasn't themselves that got shot. Case closed.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
But it could be them next (none / 0) (#80)
by redelm on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 06:41:06 PM EST

... if the police use indiscriminate/inhumane RoE.

[ Parent ]
standard law enforcement rules of engagement (2.80 / 5) (#57)
by karb on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 12:45:37 PM EST

First, I doubt the french and brit thing. If the guy said he had an explosive and was headed towards an airport terminal with a bunch of people in it, they would have killed him as well. What choice do you have?

Secondly, police first need to protect innocents, then themselves, then perps. If they protected the perps over themselves, then they would no longer be able to protect the innocent since they would be dead.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?

The "B-word" (3.00 / 6) (#71)
by Sgt York on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 04:44:00 PM EST

The people that I have heard quoted as saying that he never said "bomb" were passengers on the plane. The agents say that the guy said "bomb" while in the jetway. Based on the agents' claims alone, it should be assumed that no one on the plane heard him say "bomb". Therefore, the statements of the passengers that they never heard him say it fit quite well with the agents' statements. Even if he had yelled "BOMB!" at the top of his lungs, I doubt that anyone behind first class would have even been able to make out the muffled shout.

You state that an HE bomb would have done "little damage" in the airport terminal. That's not really true. Any item near him (chairs, paneling, the walls of the jetway, windows, his clothing) would have instanty become shrapnel. Anyone outside working on the plane outside (baggage handlers, maintenance workers, etc) would have risked serious injury. Besides, even without the risk of shrapnel, the jetway normally crosses very close to the wing. Quick trivia question: Where is the fuel stored in a jet?

It wouldn't be an explosion, but the resulting fire would have trapped the passengers in the plane, with more than half the exits blocked by flames.

The whole thing was a big wad of misfortune. But I think, in light of the potential of the situation, and given the facts of the case, that the officers were rational in how they behaved. Unless you just want to assume that they are lying.

That's fine, but you must admit to your attitude about that. From here, it seems that it's simply because you suspect them already that you think that they are lying. Unless you have a witness to the events in the jetway that counters the claims of the officers, you are supporting your case for the unjustified shooting with the claim that they are lying. In order to make the claim that they are lying, you must say that the motivation is to cover up an unjustified shooting. The argument is circular. You need another witness to make the claim that they are lying. You are using the facts for support, not illumination.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.

Air marshals (none / 0) (#78)
by marx on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 06:28:04 PM EST

I thought the only reason for having air marshals was to solve situations which arise while the plane is airborne, i.e. hijackings.

The way you describe it, the situation could just as well have happened at a restaurant. But maybe that's ok too. If an air marshal shot an irrational man at a restaurant, I don't think many Americans would react either. They would just claim he was doing his job.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Creative omission (3.00 / 1) (#110)
by Sgt York on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 10:29:29 PM EST

As long as you leave out the part about the guy yelling "I have a bomb! I have a bomb!", then sure, your criticism is well placed.

It's funny how when you can pick and choose which facts you want to accept, you can make anythng look as good or as bad as you want it to look. You can even make sure the people you dislike look like vindictive, irrational oafs.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Except that he didn't say that (none / 1) (#119)
by Ken Pompadour on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 12:33:31 AM EST

Unless you have more up to date informatino than me, it's been shown that noone heard him say he had a bomb except for one of the marshalls who shot him.

...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
[ Parent ]
And (none / 0) (#131)
by Sgt York on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 05:38:55 AM EST

if you read my OP, you'll see why that (the fact that no one heard that said) is not a big deal.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

that is a point in dispute, not a proven fact. (none / 0) (#309)
by mikelist on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:33:01 AM EST

I have personally had police lie about circumstances that enabled them to arrest me. Photographic evidence bore out my account over theirs, and the prosecutor dropped the case, but with no photo, I would be a convicted felon. Long story.

[ Parent ]
Point in dispute vs fact (none / 0) (#323)
by Sgt York on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 02:21:27 PM EST

The facts are (1)"The air marshalls say he said 'bomb' while in the jetway," and (2)"The passengers on the plane claim they never heard him say 'bomb'."

Those are not in dispute. What is in dispute is the validity of those people's statements: Are either of them lying? My point is that because the statements do not contradict each other, you cannot use them to conclude that anyone is lying. The statements are in agreement. Accusing the cops of lying on these facts alone falls into an error of circular logic, as pointed out above.

Of course, this doesn't mean close the book on it. Any time someone is killed, it should be fully investigated. But, at this point in the investigation, nothing has turned up to contradict the marshalls' stories.

Photo aside in your case, it was still obvious someone was lying. The cops said you did it, and I assume that you said you didn't. Whatever the truth, someone is lying. The incident at hand is not the same thing. There is no statement that contradicts the air marshalls' story. "Oh, it's so convienient that the only other witness is now dead, hmmmmm?" No, circular logic again.

Oh, and you can't assume that because some cops lied about you that all police incidents are about framing people up. That would be like assuming that everyone on K5 is an idiot troll with a mental age of 12.

Wait....bad analogy.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

k5, the great leveller (none / 1) (#336)
by mikelist on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:37:09 PM EST

All points are in some dispute except those you witnessed for your self. it was reported that his wife tried to get them to understand that he was merely having an incident as a result of bipolar disorder semms to have been glossed over, and it is an important detail, an accomplice wouldn't have brought attention to herself in such a situation. I also never claimed that it was certain that it was done without some good faith, but in reading and hearing several media reports, it was a tragedy rather than a good save by sky marshals. That the guy acted in a provocative manner can't be denied, but from the sound of it, they avoided an opportunity to end it without fatalities. They do have as responsibility to protect mentally ill people as well as their often more sane compatriots.  

[ Parent ]
at a restaurant, (none / 1) (#140)
by wiredog on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:59:47 AM EST

In general, if some guy is a restaurant is waving a weapon, or purported weapon, and threatening to kill people, the average American will applaud anyone who shoots the guy.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Word Games (none / 0) (#355)
by The Real Lord Kano on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 05:47:47 AM EST

I thought the only reason for having air marshals was to solve situations which arise while the plane is airborne, i.e. hijackings.

How about keeping airplanes safe while on the ground at airports?

If an air marshal shot an irrational man at a restaurant, I don't think many Americans would react either.

At some restaurants, he would have been shot by a patron.

That happens from time to time in states where people can get permits to carry concealed weapons.

LK

[ Parent ]

clothing shrapnel? (1.50 / 1) (#82)
by creativedissonance on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 06:51:07 PM EST

verily, I have been cotton-and-lycra'ed to death!  

alas!


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]

I was thinking (none / 0) (#113)
by Sgt York on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:07:04 PM EST

More along the lines of belt buckle, fastners on his jacket, contents of his pockets, watch, etc.

Although getting hit with molten polyester would probably not be very nice....

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Actually... (none / 0) (#173)
by thefirelane on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 01:07:43 PM EST

The fibers become imbedded in the skin and tissues and become infected. A lot of people died this way before modern medicine, I don't know if it still much of a problem now tough.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
So what's your alternative hypothesis? (3.00 / 3) (#75)
by alexboko on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 05:38:01 PM EST

So if it wasn't because of the backwards backpack and the disjointed bomb-ramblings, then why did they shoot him? Are you proposing the marshals shot him for fun? For target practice? To vent their burning visceral hatred of all non-caucasians? My hypothesis is that sometimes shite happens. Sometimes a manic-depressive person forgets to put their medicine in carry-on luggage, and flips out. Sometimes security officers shoot him because from their point of view better take that chance than have yet another blown-up airplane. Sometimes it's nobody's fault, reassuring though it may be to point fingers.


Godwin's Law of video games: if a company is out of ideas for a long enough period, they will eventually publish another World War II shooter.
Alternative: PISSED (none / 0) (#83)
by redelm on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 07:01:04 PM EST

It's a good question: Why did they drop their hammers? My guess is frustration. He wasn't listening and obeying their orders instantly. This enrages cops. He may also have been getting away, and they had a clear shot in the steel tunnel where they wouldn't endanger any civilians (always a huge hazard). Less fact lost than explaining how he got away.

Whatever the reality of the situation, I doubt either of the marshals will be able to continue service for long. They'll be split up, and who would want either of them as partners? Either one of them may have done "He said he had a bomb--RIGHT?" What cop wants that pressure from a partner?



[ Parent ]

wrong (none / 1) (#90)
by killfile on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 08:11:30 PM EST

This does not enrage cops. Not all cops are the arrogant sons of bitches itching for a firefight. I daresay most are not. This is the kind of situations the vast majority of cops, and I'm sure even more so at the federal level, are very fearful of, for many reasons. First of which, they may lose their life. Second, they may make a mistake. Even if they don't make a mistake, they will probably be haunted by "what if" for a long time. "What if I could have incapacitated him instead?". Even if the rules and laws totally vindicate his actions, he will know he ended the life of someone who didn't deserve to die.

[ Parent ]
Plus... (none / 0) (#252)
by alexboko on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 10:08:18 AM EST

The sheer amount of paperwork and meetings by itself is probably a deterrent to being trigger happy. Cops sign up for the job to "serve and protect" and to look cool strutting around in uniforms and saying "ten-four, over" on their walkie-talkies... not to fill out lengthy reports and be interrogated by other cops. So out of sheer self-interest I expect that they'll only shoot when they honestly expect the bureaucratic consequences of not shooting to be far worse.


Godwin's Law of video games: if a company is out of ideas for a long enough period, they will eventually publish another World War II shooter.
[ Parent ]
Alternative hypothesis. (none / 1) (#94)
by Back Spaced on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 08:34:41 PM EST

Why he was shot: If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Bluto: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder. He's pre-med.
[ Parent ]

what other tool is there? (none / 1) (#150)
by khallow on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:44:54 AM EST

Let's be honest. When someone is behaving eradically in an area with a lot of innocent people nearby and saying they have a bomb, you don't have a lot of tools left.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

art may imitate life, but life imitates TV (1.50 / 2) (#76)
by killmepleez on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 05:39:42 PM EST

I cannot banish the spectre from movies of a totalitarian policethug shooting a fleeing suspect he could easily have caught, as much a brutal warning as to save effort.

LOL@ bolded text.

__
"I instantly realized that everything in my life that I thought was unfixable was totally fixable - except for having just jumped."
--from "J
I lived in Blacksburg... (2.81 / 16) (#79)
by gr3y on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 06:40:31 PM EST

the year that a kid was shot because he pulled a pellet pistol from his waistband and waved it at several police officers in the Rite Aid on Main Street ('94 or '95).

All of the sudden, it was about race. The kid was black, the police were white, and it was that simple. I was asked to sign a petition because there was no justice. I was informed that he was deprived of his right as an American citizen to be allowed to wave a pistol at police trying to serve a warrant in a store filled with people. It was a tragedy because the police did not shoot to wound. It was a hate crime because the police would never have shot some white kid thirteen times after a struggle, wounding one of their own in the process.

The reality of the situation is this: that kid made several bad decisions which resulted in his death. He lied to the police about his identity when they tried to arrest him, resisted arrest, and then tried to escape by threatening the police with a pellet pistol.

This situation is no different. Alpizar refused to take his meds, claimed to have a bomb, and refused orders from a federal air marshal with a drawn and loaded pistol, then attempted to evade the air marshal and escape the plane. It is not about justice, it is not a tragedy, and it is not a hate crime. He made several stupid decisions, and was killed as a result.

Congratulations on your recent discovery that your actions, and those of the people around you, have consequences, and that sometimes they are not pleasant.

I refuse to participate in a consensual hallucinatory experience in which this is not entirely Alpizar's fault.

I am a disruptive technology.

in new jersey this week (1.00 / 3) (#87)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 07:36:21 PM EST

there were petitions and demonstrations against high speed chases because the police were chasing a guy on a high speed chase in a residential area

the guy the police were chasing hit a kid and killed him

who was at fault according to the protestors?

the police

i simply can't even begin how people think like that

i cannot imagine how such a simple scenario gets so twisted in some people's minds

so the message is: punish crime, but we as society won't approve of what it takes to punish crime

i simply don't understand some people, they are like aliens to me


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I will try to explain (none / 0) (#89)
by thankyougustad on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 08:00:57 PM EST

First, please bear in mind that I do not have an opinion either way vis a vis 'who was right, who was wrong.' I think the basic logic that was pushing the protesters was that the person who killed the kid was speeding because he was being chased by the police. They extrapolate: had the police slowed down once he was in the neighborhood, the fugitive presumably would have, too, and thus been able to avoid the child. High speed chases, by the way, are a bit old fashioned in this day of helecopters and airborne radar.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
i realize you are explaining not defending (1.00 / 2) (#93)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 08:18:11 PM EST

but if you are correct...

They extrapolate: had the police slowed down once he was in the neighborhood, the fugitive presumably would have, too, and thus been able to avoid the child.

then i should stop showering in the morning. because if i stop killing the bacteria on my skin, they'll slow down their growth rate since i'm not killing them anymore, and i'll smell better, right?

i didn't know that if you pursue criminals less, they behave better. i always thought that criminals acted badly because they saw an opportunity for ill-gotten gains

now i know the truth: criminals behave badly because the police chase them. if a criminal knows that the police will pursue them lethargically instead of vigorously if they steal a car, that means they will steal less cars

that's an amazing insight into crime and psychology i did not have before

(rolls eyes, slaps forehead)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Erm, kinda backwards.. (none / 0) (#96)
by The Amazing Idiot on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 08:51:29 PM EST

Well, many criminals go faster when chased.

Some drop back into normal speed if there's nodbody behind em with flashing lights. If you're going throuh an area which high speed is really bad (think school zones and the like), drop back and see what happens.

And above all, no car can out-speed a police helicopter.

[ Parent ]

i agree with everything you said (none / 1) (#104)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:48:46 PM EST

and?

what's your point?

i am saying that vigorously punishing crime results in less crime, while being lax on criminal enforcement results in more crime

yes or no?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Point being... (none / 1) (#108)
by The Amazing Idiot on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 10:15:22 PM EST

--i am saying that vigorously punishing crime results in less crime,

100% agreed, look at Texas. Strict laws and powerful punishment. Arent afraid to put evil-doers to death.

--while being lax on criminal enforcement results in more crime

I never said lax. My point is that it could be a public safety issue to actively pursue a running criminal with a land based vehicle. Hell, it could be crafted a gun that puts a radio tracer on a vehicle to watch where they go.

I am questioning the risk factor of making criminals go faster in neighborhoods vs using aerial vehicles (choppers). Some would slow down when you let up the heat (which you dont want somebody doing 80 past a school).

Even better, they need to get the dynamo arresting lasers out. They use a high powered UV laser and inject high voltage through the laser (the beam lowers air resistance in which voltage can travel). After you're tagged with it, the alternator doesnt work. Car dies.

Use some common sense here CTS.

[ Parent ]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 1) (#124)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 03:28:19 AM EST

"Even better, they need to {insert latest weird radical James Bond Gadget, untested in domestic situations}"

and then immediately

"Use some common sense here CTS."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

aw man, thanks for the laugh ;-)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Some police forces already use paint guns for this (none / 0) (#136)
by mettaur on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 06:47:10 AM EST

Well, technically not *paint guns*, but shotguns firing shells containing flouro orange paint. Presumably no criminals drive bright orange cars.
--
[Applying business theory to trolling]
[ Parent ]
that's awesome (none / 1) (#154)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:00:45 AM EST

why do you think i have a problem with that?

or rather, why do you think a better technological solution to criminal enforcement is something i would be opposed to?

the point is, you pursue criminals vigorously, and IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE LATEST COOLEST TECH WITH YOU, IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU DON'T PURSUE THEM


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The point is (none / 0) (#244)
by mettaur on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 03:26:57 AM EST

Do you pursue criminals in such a manner as to cause a risk to the general public?

High speed chases often end with either the chaser or the chasee hitting an innocent bystander. Is catching the criminal worth causing injury to bystanders?
--
[Applying business theory to trolling]
[ Parent ]
broken window theory (none / 0) (#267)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 04:24:38 PM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Windows

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Cute link (none / 0) (#311)
by mettaur on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:26:53 AM EST

But it has no relevance to high speed chases. You fail it.
--
[Applying business theory to trolling]
[ Parent ]
durrrrrr........ (none / 0) (#326)
by circletimessquare on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 04:29:36 PM EST

the point is, you vigorously pursue crime?

durrrrrrr........

duhhhhhhhhh........

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

So, you vigouroulsy pursue crime (none / 1) (#348)
by mettaur on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 07:22:26 PM EST

to the extent that you endanger innocent people? If someone stelas a car, and you chase them and collide with a bus and kill 10 people, was it worth their deaths just to go after the car theif?

By your logic, we should be dropping nukes on cities that have criminals in. Sure that's a lot of collateral damage, but at least we get the criminals!
--
[Applying business theory to trolling]
[ Parent ]
actually helicopters are pretty slow (none / 1) (#209)
by Paul Jakma on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:18:18 PM EST

above all, no car can out-speed a police helicopter.

On a decent stretch of road an uncommonly fast car or most common motorcycles, can easily leave common heli's behind.

[ Parent ]

I will try again. (none / 1) (#97)
by thankyougustad on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 08:59:55 PM EST

then i should stop showering in the morning. because if i stop killing the bacteria on my skin, they'll slow down their growth rate since i'm not killing them anymore, and i'll smell better, right?
No. This is not only irrational, but has nothing to do with my illustration. Forget your BO.
i didn't know that if you pursue criminals less, they behave better. i always thought that criminals acted badly because they saw an opportunity for ill-gotten gains

Criminals don't behave in any black/white kind of ways. Often it is to get ill-gotten gians. Sometimes it is to speak out against an oppresive government (Iran for instance imprisions political activists), other times it is simply to enjoy another adults body (oral sex is illegal in some states), and it can also be purely personal satisfaction (smoking cannibis is illegal in all states). Laws make people criminals; they do not all behave the same and not all are equal, even in the eyes of the law.

Now, the idea is not that persuing criminals makes them behave better. After all, they can be persued from a long distance by electronic means and they will behave more or less the same as if they were unobserved. Witness FBI bugging of the mob. This is, as are many things in this shades of grey world, is not the same. In this case, the fugitive was responding to a direct stimulus: the police. He, in an attempt to evade them, was driving fast and more importantly, recklessly. If you remove the stimulus, then, so believe the protesters, you remove the impetus for the fugitive to drive recklessly.

now i know the truth: criminals behave badly because the police chase them. if a criminal knows that the police will pursue them lethargically instead of vigorously if they steal a car, that means they will steal less cars
I realize this is sarcasm, but I don't think it is effective because it is far away from the reality of the situation. Car chases don't prevent car thieviery anymore than 'lethargic' policing.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
chaning the subject doesn't win the argument (none / 0) (#103)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:46:50 PM EST

you're all over the place: political agitation, the mob, etc. i'm talking about simple straightforward theft. you're casting a wider net, where yes, you're points are correct. except that's not what we are talking about, so your points don't apply. keep the focus narrow with me: lifting someone's wallet, stealing someone's car, climbing in an open window and crawling out with the jewelry...

vigorously punishing crime results in less crime, being more lax in pursuing criminal results in more crime

yes or no?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Third try. (none / 1) (#107)
by thankyougustad on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 10:01:29 PM EST

i'm talking about simple straightforward theft.
I know.
vigorously punishing crime results in less crime, being more lax in pursuing criminal results in more crime yes or no?

Niether yes nor no. I have a feeling it is much more complex than this. Also, a high speed chase in persuit of a fugitive is in no way punishing crime. You claim that I am all over the place, but it is you who cannot stick to the subject. In the original post, you expressed your bewilderment that some residents of New Jersey could protest the police for engaging in a high speed chase that, as a result, killed a young boy in a residential neighborhood. You didn't understand their point of view. I, understanding both your point of view and theirs, am attempting to explain theirs to you.

They seem to think that had the police not chased him in a car, and instead used some other kind of surveillance, such as airborne radar, then the criminal would not have driven into a residential neighborhood at a reckless speed. Do you understand this part of the argument? (In the future I would ask you to tell me which parts you don't understand so that I can explain only those, instead of rehashing the entire thing from the begining.)

I was thinking of analogies, and this might be a good one. Imagine you are pushing a bar of soap along a tile floor. The soap represents the fugitive, you hand the police, and the floor the road. The soap moves in front of your hand in accordence with how much force you apply. Force is like the speed of the police cruisers. As you increase force, the speed of the soap increases. As the police increase speed, the fugitve, in turn, increases speed in an effort to 'lose' the cops. Once you remove your hand, the stimulus, the soap comes to a rest. Presumably, the fugitive, without the stimulus of the police cars, will also slow done to safer speeds. (By safer I am thinking of his own safety. Most people feel mort comfortable driving at 40 mph than at 120 mph.) He also will not drive as fast because that would attract the attention of any police who were not looking out specifically for him, in effect, he becomes inconspicious (contrast this to a car doing 120 mph). Please try to think about the soap analogy before going off on a tangent. If you think about it, and it still doesn't make sense, I will try again, maybe.

Now, I post that the protesters are using this as their frame of reference in qualifying human behavior. Given that, they seem to be upset that the police would continue to persue the fugitive in a reckless manner given the surroundings: schools, old people, mothers with babies, and so on. Their is safer, more effective alternative: airborne radar. In this manner, the fugitive can be tracked as he flees at his own pace, unaware that he is being followed. The police can then apprehend him at a more convienent, safer time. He can then be arrested, tried, and imprisoned if found guilty.



No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
You're really pissing into the wind here. (none / 1) (#121)
by Orange Tanning Cream on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 01:19:24 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I know (none / 0) (#192)
by thankyougustad on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 05:12:34 PM EST

its like Tibetan Debate. I'm merely honeing my debating skills on the dull hone stone that is CTS.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
you stole my line (nt) (none / 0) (#217)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:11:01 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
you're retarded (1.33 / 3) (#125)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 03:52:01 AM EST

my point is, DO SOMETHING about the criminal

because yes, you can push soap around all day, but you will eventually grab it

just standing there looking at it, you definitely will never catch it

as for

you expressed your bewilderment that some residents of New Jersey could protest the police for engaging in a high speed chase that, as a result, killed a young boy in a residential neighborhood.

you just encapsulated my entire bewilderment, and continue to bewilder me

because THE POLICE ACTION DID NOT RESULT IN THE DEATH OF A YOUNG BOY, THE CRIMINAL'S ACTIONS DID. do you feel me?

i just stole a car. now i see lights flashing behind me... yes, it's a cop

okay, now what happens?

i put my foot on the pedal and speed away. i hit a kid

okay, who is to blame for this?

DID THE POLICE JUST MAGICALLY FORCE THE CRIMINAL TO PUSH HIS FOOT HARDER ON THE GAS PEDAL???!!! i seriously don't understand the thought process that blames the police for the death of that kid, it completely mystifies me. the police ar ecompletely innocent, THE CRIMINAL KILLED THE KIDS. HIS ACTIONS INITIATED EERYTHING, AND DROVE THE SITUATION TO THE DEATH OF THE KID... which gives you only MORE reason to pursue and punsih him!

and airborne radar? are you serious?

tell me which is right: pursue crime, or don't pursue crime, yes or no?

once you get past that point you can begin to talk about HOW we pursue crime

and if airborne radar can be afforded in the situation, USE IT, IT IS SUPERIOR

but if it is not available?

YOU STILL PURSUE THE CRIMINAL

do you feel me?

do you think that people like to take the hard way of solving problems? i can guaranteee you that airborn radar is a nice lazy way to pursue a subject. i can also guarantee you, it's not always available!

the first and foremost issue is your intent: catch criminals... HOW you form your intent: road chase/ airborn radar, is the second step

so either you intend to catch criminals, or you don't. you either use the tools AVAILABLE TO YOU to catch them, or you don't

the point is: YOU PUNISH CRIME VIGOROUSLY

YEs, or NO? answer the question


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

For fuck's sake. (none / 0) (#146)
by BJH on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:14:20 AM EST

Stop twisting the question to suit your weird little rant on crime and punishment.

He's saying, having some kid killed because of some asshole's desire to lift a Range Rover is worse than letting the asshole get away for the time being and picking him up later in a more controllable situation.

I know it may seem hard for you to believe that policemen in countries outside the US actually do things like tracking down criminals who aren't standing right in front of their doughnut-munching faces, but it does actually happen.

And they don't even need to shoot them to do it! Incredible! Where will the madness end?!
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

magical europe! (none / 0) (#152)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:49:54 AM EST

in europe the police can punish crime by letting criminals get away!

then they do magic and they are just as effective at capturing them as if they pursued them!

plus, we blame the police for what criminals do and it's case closed, simple-simple!

magical europe!

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

well the fact is (none / 0) (#194)
by thankyougustad on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 05:14:33 PM EST

there is less crime per capita, and more criminals brought to justice, than in America. (Snicker)

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
yeah, you got me there (none / 0) (#219)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:14:41 PM EST

hey, btw... you better go check on your car outside, make sure it hasn't been torched by any mobs yet today ;-P

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_per_of_saf_wal_in_dar

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I live in Richmond, Virginia (none / 0) (#226)
by thankyougustad on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:04:53 PM EST



No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
are you a francophile or a real frog? (nt) (none / 0) (#276)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:05:27 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
American of French extraction. (none / 1) (#280)
by thankyougustad on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:15:26 PM EST



No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Also (none / 0) (#227)
by thankyougustad on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:06:42 PM EST

your graph is useless compared to one illustrating what I actually said.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
broken window theory (none / 0) (#268)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 04:25:05 PM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Windows

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I familiar with that theory. . . (none / 0) (#281)
by thankyougustad on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:18:41 PM EST

but not sure how it applies in relation to those graphs.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
it applies to the argument (none / 0) (#282)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:21:27 PM EST

get tough on crime or not

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
you resort to ad hominem (none / 0) (#193)
by thankyougustad on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 05:13:38 PM EST

I'm going to have to take this as a victory for me, even though you haven't been listening to me at all.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
i'm multitalented (none / 0) (#216)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:10:00 PM EST

i can outwit you and piss on you at the same time


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
You have to understand (none / 0) (#153)
by bml on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:53:02 AM EST

that in cts'... eh... "peculiar" worldview, it's better to kill an innocent child than to do nothing.

The Internet is vast, and contains many people. This is the way of things. -- Russell Dovey
[ Parent ]
yes (none / 0) (#156)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:08:24 AM EST

i like to kill children, preferably once a day, usually after my morning bowel movement

your blazing insight into why people think the way they do is a sight to behold

you have a bright future writing negative political ads (snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Correct me if I'm wrong (none / 0) (#164)
by bml on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:52:53 AM EST

Didn't you tell me, a few weeks ago, "doing anything is better than doing nothing"? This is not out of context, it was a reply to my question: "so, doing anything, anything, is always better than doing nothing?". Your answered affirmatively.

So it follows naturally that killing innocent children is better than doing nothing and "breed pestilence".

I was just explaining your position to that gustad guy.

The Internet is vast, and contains many people. This is the way of things. -- Russell Dovey
[ Parent ]

yes (none / 0) (#167)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 11:07:21 AM EST

that is what i am saying

you've proven that i want to kill children, you got me, you found out the true me

that's the obviously logical consequence of what i was saying, obviously

wow, you've really shut me down here

...or, maybe it's just that your iq is too low to keep track of a funny odd alien concept called "context"

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Of course criminals can fly helicoptors (none / 1) (#141)
by procrasti on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:12:15 AM EST

How retarded are YOU?? How can you even suggest they can't?  Please stick to the topic at hand and don't drift off.  Now if you could just answer the original point you might win the argument.

YES, being lax on crime does make more policeman, vigoursly punishing helicopters with Miss Discipline would solve crime, but if we don't punish the criminals with helicoptors the terrorists have already won.

yes or no?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

dude (none / 0) (#157)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:11:03 AM EST

don't keep all the pills to yourself, pass them around


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Since when... (none / 0) (#145)
by BJH on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:09:44 AM EST

...was conducting a high-speed car chase through streets filled with kids on bikes, old grannies crossing the road, and dewy-eyed little puppy dogs been punishment?

CTS, I know sometimes you seem retarded, but you're really reaching new heights of maroonhood here.
The police in Norway avoid chasing people in cars at high speed, because that could GET INNOCENT PEOPLE KILLED. They, instead, do their jobs and track down the criminal using methods that don't require peeling baby brains off their radiator with a spoon.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

i don't understand you (none / 0) (#158)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:13:42 AM EST

WHO'S FAULT WOULD IT BE IF SOMEONE GOT KILLED

IT'S

NOT

THE

POLICE

how could it POSSIBLY be the police's fault??????

i truly and simply don't understnad how you can blame the police

were the police in the car being pursued, pushing the gas pedal?

WHO IS PUSHING THE GAS PEDAL???

jesus fucking christ, i simply don't understand you

you think i think killing innocent bystanders is ok in the pursuit of justice

I AM MORE PISSED AT IT THAN YOU!

BUT I KNOW WHERE TO PLACE THE BLAME FOR IT!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

sigh (none / 0) (#208)
by Paul Jakma on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:13:52 PM EST

Have you ever considered reading the posts you reply to? You'd come off looking less dumb if your posts showed some comprehension of the content of the posts you reply to. (At least, to those few who manage to read your badly punctuated and unstructured ramblings anyway. Ever heard of paragraphs?)

how could it POSSIBLY be the police's fault??????

If the police end up knocking down people (which is not uncommon in pursuits), then yes it is the polices' fault. Above all else, they should do no harm. The public is supposed to be safer because of them, not have their lives put in danger by them.


[ Parent ]

i read everything you said (none / 0) (#224)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:43:35 PM EST

you're simply unable to grasp the point of our disagreement

you're confusing accountability and causation

if i chop down a tree and it falls in my neighbors yard, and my neighbor in return kills my daughter, my actions caused my neighbor to kill my daughter, but i am not accountable for my daugher's death, my neighbor is

likewise, if the police flash their lights at a car thief, and he in response speeds up and kills a pedestrian, the police actions caused the pedestrians death, but the car thief is accountable for the death, not the police

you can't blame the police for what criminals do, even when being pursued the police


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Hide (0) (none / 0) (#246)
by deadnancy on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 07:15:51 AM EST

You slipped up there and used an analogy instead of a strawman, and your post in general was entirely too coherent. I found myself actually understanding your position. /shudder

I think you meant:
snicker

if i chopped up your mother becuz she is HITLER, it WASN'T ME who killed that bitch, it was teh CLEAVAR!

mwuhahahahaha! dickstain!

DN

[ Parent ]
broken window theory (none / 0) (#275)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:04:36 PM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Windows

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
broken biscuits (none / 1) (#315)
by deadnancy on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 09:08:11 AM EST

Giuliani
Giuliani
Giuliani
Fuck You!
DIE!


—Agnostic Front

[ Parent ]
intellectually slumming it with cts (none / 0) (#254)
by Paul Jakma on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 12:02:35 PM EST

You still havn't bothered to actually read the original post, or even my reply to you, have you? Here's the quote from the original post:

They, instead, do their jobs and track down the criminal using methods that don't require peeling baby brains off their radiator with a spoon.

He was talking about the risks of the police killing pedestrians while in pursuit. Here is where I reiterated that to you, as you had ignored it when replying to him:

If the police end up knocking down people

And yet you still reply with:

if the police flash their lights at a car thief, and he in response speeds up and kills a pedestrian,

You either have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old or you're simply too caught up in your own deranged opinions to even bother reading replies to you.


[ Parent ]

broken window theory (none / 0) (#274)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:03:58 PM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Windows

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
ah, a more sensible response (none / 0) (#288)
by Paul Jakma on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 07:01:35 PM EST

I'd agree strongly with that.

But still, while pursuing a criminal the police should still not put the public at risk. They can slow down and back off and still catch him later (e.g. by co-ordinating with other units, using helicopters if available). The criminal themselves often will slow down too if the police back off.

It's about striking balance between catching a criminal and putting lives at risk. It also should be proportionate to the alleged crime the criminals being pursued are suspected of.

Balance.

[ Parent ]

why don't we let the public decide (none / 0) (#290)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 07:15:05 PM EST

i'll think you'll find it quite interesting that the public know all to well how much of a weight on their community the criminals are, and how much they would not blame the police for a death during a chase

luckily, in a democracy, that voice is respected

it is the voice of those who think they know what is good for the community better than the community does that is the problem

communities do not want criminals running around it, they will go to great lengths and risks to rid themselves of them, whether or not you think it is right


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

sure (none / 1) (#297)
by Paul Jakma on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:16:58 PM EST

Sure, that voice should be respected. Round here (Ireland and UK at least) that voice has been for the police to back off rather than put the public at risk.

[ Parent ]
that's fine (none / 0) (#299)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:38:40 PM EST

attitudes change over time

new york city once had a soft on crime approach, until it turned into a cesspool in the 1970s/ 1980s and people talked about the death of the city. now new york city has a hard on crime approach, and real estate values are soaring and crime rates are at all-time lows and the subways don't look like graffiti art galleries

again, attitudes evolve over time

what that means is i wouldn't be surprised if uk/ ireland evolves a harder attitude as time goes on and their communities rot. i also wouldn't be surprised if some kid gets killed in a car chase in 2010 in new york city, and a softer-on-crime atittude develops, and the city's quality of life begins to go down again

i wish people had longer memories

tragedy in the pursuit of crime is just that: tragedy. the thought should end there but it doesn't. good folks with short memories extrapolate from that suffering of the innocents and assume a softer effort at hunting crime will result in less suffering and tragedy. they mean well, but they are wrong

the pursuit of crime is all about nailing assholes with bad intent. people with bad intent hide behind the innocent all the time, it is their prime means of evading and maneuvering. so of course innocent get hurt by those who hunt those with bad intent, it is simple statistical inevitability

the fact that innocents get hurt in the hunt for those with bad intent angers good people, and softens their attitudes on hunting those with bad intent. but what those who are angered by the innocent hurt in the hunt for criminals don't realize is that softening your hunt on those with bad intent only multiplies and breeds more with bad intent: you teach the bold and uncaring amongst us that all you have to do is jeopardize more good people, and the police will back off. so you reward criminals who are willing to be more callous, and you teach all criminals to be more callous, such that more innocents get hurt in the long run by criminals directly

so yes, a soft on crime atittude lessens innocents hurt by the police in the hunt for criminals, but by an order of magnitude less than the number of criminals you breed with a soft on crime approach. and therefore the suffering they cause directly by their actions on innocents increases by a much larger amount. the point is in connecting the two phenomena in your mind. it is a case of low-key humdrum statistical inevitability being overruled by sensationalistic events. what are you willing to tolerate? the occasional tragic heart-breaking headline? or a large increase in daily suffering of all of society at the hands of criminals?

so for me, personally, the hunt for crime should be unyeilding, it is the only way to reduce suffering, anyway you analyze it. if people in a community don't feel that way, i respect their decision, but i don't think they put two and two together and connect the dots. and so i prophecy: ireland the uk will deal with more and more criminals. but the tide will turn. again, probably driven by sensationalistic headlines, but not of innocents hurt, but by headlines of the craven and callousness of criminals bred by soft on crime policies

again, i wish we had longer memories, these pendulum swings in public attitude waste so much time and energy


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Why not arrest/kill everyone? (none / 0) (#313)
by procrasti on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 08:56:35 AM EST

No more criminals, no more crime... you'd be happy then, right?

Maybe the cost of crime should balance the damage caused by fighting it? Sometimes that means you don't catch every criminal...

Why do you think the justice system is biased towards letting innocents go rather than penalising every criminal. Given that, why persue every criminal, regardless of the costs? Why have other countries decided that some things are not worth the costs, like persuing criminals in high speed cars through school zones?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

wtf? (none / 0) (#324)
by circletimessquare on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 04:08:02 PM EST

me: "pursue crime vigorously"

you: "you want to arrest everyone?"

same as

me: "i am for the legalization of marijuana"

you: "why do you want to legalize pedophilia?"

get fucking real, you're reacting to what i say hysterically


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Actually (1.50 / 2) (#327)
by procrasti on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 04:37:48 PM EST

You asked, 'How can cops be responsible for the death of someone a criminal kills while being persued by the police'

And I've been trying to make it make sense to you ever since.

You say, 'BE TOUGH ON CRIME', and I say 'there are limits and this is why police must be responsible', then you accuse me of calling you a pedophile...

I know, you'd rather say I'm calling you a pedophile than actually agree that cops should bear some responsibility for the results of their actions on the public when persuing criminals, or instead you will suggest I was saying that I think we should let criminals go... Or I expect to see another long page of hysteria of how all your cars will have their windows broken if we don't shoot the CD theifs.

So which is it? Do you want zero tolerence, to persue crime vigorously and to arrest/kill everyone or do you think that their should be limits to what is done in the name of stopping crime, perhaps like not chasing speeding cars through fair grounds? If police shouldn't chase cars through fair grounds, who is responsible for it when they do?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

poor hysterical twit (none / 0) (#329)
by circletimessquare on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 04:58:20 PM EST

welcome to k5, where you have a window into other people's minds

i just got a window on what it is like to live in your mind (shudder)

apparently, in your world, you can't take prudent small steps in a direction in society that frightens you, because apparently taking one step in such a direction means YOU'VE ALREADY TRAVELED THE REMAINING 10,000 MILES TO FASCISM

lol ;-P

i'm so happy i'm not a hysterical twit

me: "i think it's prudent we pursue crime more vigorously than we do"

you: "DON'T YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR SAYING IS YOU WANT TO ARREST AND KILL EVERYONE???"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

you're fucking hilarious dude

you're such a spastic retard ;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No (1.50 / 2) (#331)
by procrasti on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:10:21 PM EST

Apparantly you can't understand simple logic.

You say police can't be held responsible because then all the criminals would get away and destroy your world....  And you say I have a problem of blowing small steps out of proportion. I didn't even comment whether police should persue more vigoursly or not.

i'm so happy i'm not a hysterical twit

HAHAHAHAHA - funny!! Next you can accuse of being a fascist American idiot....

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

let me see if i can play your game (none / 0) (#332)
by circletimessquare on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:48:48 PM EST

you say: "we should let criminals get away in a high speed chase to save innocent lives"

my reply: "so you want to let every single criminal out of prison!? you want murderers and rapists to go totally free?! apparantly you can't understand simple logic! because don't you know that is what you are really saying!?"

dude, i KNOW you don't think that, and i KNOW that's not a consequence of your position

so can stop hyperventilating you airheaded bitch and see that smearing me the SAME WAY does not make sense THE SAME WAY

i swear, you fucking hysterical twits are so annoying


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

So you agree (1.50 / 2) (#333)
by procrasti on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:00:48 PM EST

That there are limits to law enforcement for the sake of stopping criminals.... (As close as you ever get to saying you actually agree with something I guess). Which is good, cause I agree with you.

So, if there are limits to what the police should do, they must be responsible for their actions.

Glad you agree... Well, I guess by now you also agree that you can be held responsible for another person's actions, if your actions can be expected to affect theirs.

Great... we're in total agreement.

Well, given all that, tell me why police should not be held responsible when an innocent person dies as a result of a persuit.  And when I say held responsible I mean should be made to answer to an enquiry, not must go to prison for 100 years.

Are we still in agreement?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

jesus christ (none / 0) (#335)
by circletimessquare on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:32:13 PM EST

so now that i shot down you're whole "since you support a little stronger police action it must mean you're paving the way for fascism" gambit, now suddenly you're going to try to be reasonable?

fucking fuck off you twit

why don't you try being reasonable to BEGIN WITH you fuck

you owe me being reasonable to BEGIN WITH

it shouldn't be that smearing me and my position is your default attitude, and only when i ridicule you enough do you suddenly switch gears to being reasonable

get it?

i've said everything i have to say on the argument, you're simply not worth talking to, because you're an ASSHOLE

you start off by smearing someone, and only if that doesn't work you try to be reasonable?!

you're such a fucking DICK


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

you are funny (1.50 / 2) (#337)
by procrasti on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:40:17 PM EST

You asked: How can police be responsible, which is all I'm trying to educate you on, and you make the first appeal to extremes and unreasonableness....

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
YAY I WIN (1.50 / 1) (#346)
by procrasti on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 11:14:08 AM EST

I'll take that zero rating as an admission of defeat.

YOU LOSE LOSER!!

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

proportionality (none / 1) (#338)
by Paul Jakma on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 07:00:15 PM EST

I'm not saying the police should be soft on crime. I've made no comment on that issue at all. (Indeed, I think vigorous and high-profile community policing is something sadly lacking in western urban areas today).

All I'm saying is that policing should be proportional to the crime. Car theft and reckless driving are not worth risking 3rd party lives over, at least in the eyes of the public here. OTOH, if the persons being pursued are suspected of more dangerous crimes (say murder or armed robbery, etc), then greater risks in pursuit may well be justified.

Everything in proportion.


[ Parent ]

the cuntfuck are you talking about, retard? (2.62 / 8) (#128)
by fenix down on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 05:12:37 AM EST

i didn't know that if you pursue criminals less, they behave better.

Q: You seem to have just lost the cops who were chasing you.  Do you...
a) Accelerate to 112 mph and careen wildly around residential areas until someone calls the cops and tells them where you are.
b) SLOW THE FUCK DOWN, YOU STUPID FAGGOT.

A: b

Q: You are a police officer. Somewhere during your training, you read a manual that had a section titled something like "Vehicle Persuit Actions."  When the chase is beginning to pose a serious danger to bystanders, it told you to...
a) Keep chasing him, because otherwise the bacteria on your skin will multiply and you'll smell bad.
b) "Serve and Protect" does not entail compounding a robbery and some moving violations with a civilian death toll.  NIGGER ROBBED A 7/11, YOU STUPID CUNT, LET HIM GO, CHECK THE SECURITY CAMERA TAPE, ARREST HIM TOMORROW FUCKING MORNING.  HOLY FUCK YOU'RE A MORON.

A) b

[ Parent ]

tee hee ;-) (none / 1) (#175)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 01:16:48 PM EST

i understand you now

if i am a criminal, all i have to do is be more of an asshole, put more lives at risk, and the cops will stop hunting me

got it

ever hear of personal responsibility you fucktwat?

if the cops are pursuing a guy and the guy speeds up THE COPS AREN'T PUSHING THE GUYS GAS PEDAL WITH THEIR FOOT are they moron?

in fact, they're probably yelling over the loudspeaker "pull over!"

if that guy hits a little kid, who killed the kid?

a. the cops
b. the criminal

unlike you, i won't provide a racial epithet filled answer

i'll let you use your boundless imagination to figure it out (snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You'd think that after all this time (none / 1) (#195)
by thankyougustad on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 05:26:16 PM EST

I'd be used to your belligerence. But the fact that you can't entertain another point of view aside from your own a priori conclusion still sometimes blows my mind. Congratulations.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
entertain another point of view? (none / 1) (#201)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 06:06:14 PM EST

how about logically and coherently dismantling your point of view, and therefore disregarding it appropriately?

scenario for you:

guy takes kid hostage. police surround him. guy says he'll kill kid unless police let him leave. the police botch an attempt to snipe the guy, so the guy shoots the kid

who is reponsible for killing the kid? the police? or the criminal?

according to all matters of ethics and morality and legality and logic, THE CRIMINAL IS 100% RESPONSIBLE

not 99%, not 60%

100-FUCKING-PERCENT

am i being pig headed?

OR AM I JUST MAKING MORE FUCKING SENSE THAN YOU?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Actually, he's right and you're wrong. (none / 0) (#248)
by procrasti on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:15:14 AM EST

One thing everyone can see for sure is, that if you once thought an idea was right, you will always think it is right, independent of ANY arguement bought to you.  I have never seen you change your mind on even the most tiny detail.

CTS: The sky is blue
SomeOne Else: Not when there are clouds
CTS: THE SKY IS ALWAYS FUCKING BLUE YOU PROPAGANDISED NATIONALISTIC MORON!! I'M TALKING GLOBALLY NOT LOCALLY AND I CAN SEE THE SKY IS BLUE OUTSIDE MY WINDOW YOU STUPID FUCK... etc, etc, etc, etc.
SomeOne Else: Sky is black at night.
CTS: IF THE SKY WAS BLACK THE WHOLE SOCIETY WOULD FALL APART IN WAYS THAT WOULD MAKE YOU DREAM FOR 1984 RETARD!!!, etc, etc, etc...

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

broken window theory (none / 0) (#264)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 04:23:30 PM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Windows

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Hi there, from your friendly alien european (none / 1) (#100)
by alge on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:16:46 PM EST

Apparantly Norway would be very alien to you, Mr CTS. Over here, the police has strict guidelines to prevent high speed chases, and most people seem to support it. I realize "most people" is a dangerous term, but most elected politicans to our legislative branch definetly do, and I dare say that our elections are more democratic than yours.

So anyway, back to the point. We believe that it's better to not engage in a high speed car chase because it represents a danger to bystanders and the participants. Most car chases are related to "financial gain" crimes and drug related crimes, which are not worth sacrificing innocent lives for.

There has been quite a lot of controversy when car chases have resulted in injuries or deaths. The police has a tendency to think that car chases are "cool". Here's a quote from the police radio during and after a chase: "This is what makes police work fun" and "too bad didn't last longer". One of the police officers involved in this chase was fined 5000 NOK (~$750) for irresponsible conduct.

The general sentiment over here seems to be: It's better that a villain escapes than that the same villain dies in a car crash. So you are going to argue that the criminals will use this knowledge and commit more crime. The amazing thing is that there are not a lot of episodes where criminals escape from car chases and don't get caught.

Just because you think it's alien, CTS, doesn't mean it's not a valid point of view. Oh, and I do realize that it's hopeless to discuss this with you, it's more for the usian K5ers out there who have lost hope in humanity. And sorry about my vocabulary, I know it's hopless. ):

vi er ikke lenger elsket her

[ Parent ]

what is the value to you (none / 0) (#102)
by circletimessquare on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:41:58 PM EST

of vigorously punishing criminal activity?

i am glad for the description you give me, thank you for the insight, but me personally, i still cannot understand this mentality

The amazing thing is that there are not a lot of episodes where criminals escape from car chases and don't get caught.

this is the part i don't uderstand: how do you have dramatic success at enforcement by relaxing enforcement? how does that work? honest question

because it seems to me that norway has just acclimated itself to car theft. i wonder what your insurance rates are like

i'd rather criminals pay for crime than me pay for crime. it was the choice of the criminal that got everyone in that situation. it was their initiative, therefore, it is their responsibility

proximate cause is not actual cause. people have to look at the bigger picture to solve problems in this world. norway's policy doesn't solve the bigger problem, it just acclimates itself to car theft and accepts it. that's an alien concept to me. crime is crime. punish it, and punish it vigorously. i think that's the only valid point of view as far as i can understand basic  morality and obvious cause and effect


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

My values and observations (none / 0) (#134)
by alge on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 06:17:54 AM EST

My values are definelty further southwest on the political compass than many of my fellow citizens (who's general view I tried to portray in the parent comment). But since you ask, I will reply. I believe criminal punishment should be used as deterrent and possibly readjustment to normal society, not punishing for the sake of punishment itself. Ie., higher speeding tickets because it seems to make people drive slower, and shorter jail sentences in more specialized institutions which should not be a breeding ground for criminal activity in it self. (As many prisons (including Norwegian) are.)

Back on topic:

this is the part i don't uderstand: how do you have dramatic success at enforcement by relaxing enforcement? how does that work?
Another example of this: Guns. Police here does not normally carry guns. Some patrol cars have a safe with guns they can use if they request it, but I've never seen them actually carrying any. It's not hard for civilans to get guns: Join a club, get a license, buy it. And still there are is not a lot of criminals running around with guns threatening to shoot people. How can it be?

People don't steal cars just because they can (and get away with it). Not vigorously enforcing crime does not create criminals. People steal cars because they need the money, people shoot eachother because they need drugs, etc.. The roots to the crime are so much deeper than just the amount of deterrent from the local criminal enforcement.

And as for Norway and car theft, I often leave my car unlocked (typically at the airport when skydiving), and have so far not even lost a single penny from the ashtray. But please don't tell my insurance company I said that. (:

vi er ikke lenger elsket her

[ Parent ]

well then you're stupid (none / 0) (#163)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:49:17 AM EST

norway, #5

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_car_the_cap

so you're defending a failed policy

Not vigorously enforcing crime does not create criminals.

yes, it does

if there is a perception i can get away with something without getting punished, i am much more likely to do that

welcome to fundamental aspects of human nature, please try to inform your opinions with a better understanding of it


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Maybe I am. (none / 0) (#184)
by alge on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 03:12:18 PM EST

Interesting statistics. Bear in mind that the definition states: "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence."

so you're defending a failed policy

I certainly didn't say that there would be less car theft because of the police not going on high speed car chases. I'm saying it's worth the compromise if it saves lives from car chase related accidents.

There are so many things I could do and get away with every day that would give me a slight advantage, and still I rarely do. I think it's called conscience or something.

vi er ikke lenger elsket her

[ Parent ]

which means you aren't a criminal, god bless you (none / 0) (#202)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 06:22:26 PM EST

but there ARE people who would try to do "so many things I could do and get away with every day that would give me a slight advantage"

such people are criminals

and if you don't pursue them vigorously, you are sending them a message: be more bold, be more craven, be more cruel, and you will be free to do whatever you want to

you are rewarding their criminality by saying if you escalate your criminal behavior, you have a higher chance of being successful

i think the more criminal the behavior, the more vigorous the effor tto punish should be

for example, if the police are following a car thief, and the car thief escalates the situation into more criminality: pushing the pedal to the metal, putting lives at risk, then the car thief has just announced he has no problem committing murder in the pursuit of free cars. AT THAT VERY MOMENT, the police have a moral obligation to pursue the thief faster and escalate their own effort to catch the thief-cum-murderer

but in your world, your saying "if you want to just steal a car, we will try to punish you, but if you are willing to kill in order to get your free car, we won't try to punish you"

i think that the vigorousness with which the police pursue the criminal should be directly proportionate to the callousness and brazenness of the criminal

but you are telling me that there should be a threshold: if the criminal gets brazen and callous enough, efforts at punishing the criminal should be retarded

no, i don't understand that way of thinking, because the CRIMINAL is responsible for his reckless behavior, NOT the police in their efforts to catch him

the failed norwegian way

A French radio producer who was in the museum at the time of the theft said security was not very tight.

"What's strange is that in this museum, there weren't any means of protection for the paintings, no alarm bell," Francois Castang told France Inter radio, the Associated Press reported.

"The paintings were simply attached by wire to the walls," he said. "All you had to do is pull on the painting hard for the cord to break loose - which is what I saw one of the thieves doing."

Ms Christofferson said the guards were more concerned with protecting visitors than the paintings.

"When they threaten the guards with a gun there is not much to be done," she told the BBC.

"They were more concerned with the security of the visitors."

what is that, the second time that thing's been stolen? so the treasured cultural artifacts of norway: if i act cold and callous enough, i can just take whatever i want from norwegians?

if i try to rape a norwegian woman, and the police approach me, all i have to do is raise the stakes- hold a knife to her throat, and the police will let me get away?

you simply don't understand criminality and boldness

if you reward boldness, criminals will be bolder, get it?

you seem very naive to me


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No, you are naive (none / 0) (#260)
by tetsuwan on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 03:20:12 PM EST

Do you expect a criminal to stop? The first rule if you commit a crime is 'do not get caught'. When the police comes after a criminal, 99% act on the instinct 'run away'.* One very good example of this is adolescents on overpowered mopeds. (I don't know if you have this exact problem in the US). A moped, or scooter, is a very agile vehicle, and sometimes the police have been known to chase overpowered mopeds on small bicycle roads (? 2 yards wide). This has been outlawed because of the danger that the police car drives over a bystander on a bicycle. The crime here is the overpowering the moped. The youngster flees because he doesn't want his moped to be confiscated. So what is worse: a youngster having an overpowered moped, or the possibly lethally dangerous pursuit? The answer to this dilemma is to avoid situations where police action makes things worse. The answer is to catch the criminal when pushing the pedal is all what it takes to (get the chance to) get away.

*Apperently, this is, to my friend the Japanese policeman's chagrin, not the case in Japan. They typically give up straight away.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

broken window theory (none / 0) (#265)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 04:23:55 PM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Windows

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
yes (none / 0) (#269)
by tetsuwan on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 04:30:56 PM EST

the result in this case is that you have a lot of overpowered mopeds in the Swedish countryside. I bet a lot of American farmers let their kids drive to early too.

I do wholeheartedly agree with the broken window theory. For example, my old shabby car was vandalized soon enough, my new shiny car hasn't been touched.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

good, i'm glad you agree (none / 0) (#271)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:02:31 PM EST

because that's all i'm arguing for

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I don't dispute what you say. (none / 0) (#305)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 10:03:31 PM EST

But in our culture, if police voluntarily disarmed, they'd be chewed to shreds.

People initially do steal to survive. But once that behavior becomes ingrained, and starts to become a culture unto itself, it doesn't just end once people are taken care of. Our own crime needed to be headed off at this pass decades ago, if not farther back.

We can't welfare our way out of it. You guys though, think that because it's always been nice, that everyone else can just be the same way, and we'll get a norwayish level of crime.

Even now, the scandinavian countries are starting to learn this lesson, as an immigrant culture deflects attempts to "nice your way out of crime".

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

What is the value to you (none / 0) (#143)
by procrasti on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:26:21 AM EST

of catching one criminal trying to get away in a car now and the value of an innocent child's (potential) life?

Yes the criminal who kills a child escaping from the police is in the wrong, no argument. However, that doesn't mean that chasing the criminal has no risks to innocent bystanders.

I guess its up to the society what they value more, tough, quick punishment, or the safety of society at large from accidents caused by high speed car chases. If the police know who the criminal is, and can arrest them at a later point, or they can catch them more safely by setting up road blocks etc, then I suggest the importance of catching them now is less.

Do you honestly suggest that criminals wouldn't slow down if the police backed off? If they think they have evaded the police they are likely to slow down so as not to draw attention to themselves, or even just so that they feel back in control of the car.

Some people value the child's life over a quick arrest... don't you?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

how... is... (none / 0) (#162)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:45:02 AM EST

it... possible... the... police... are... responsible... for... what... criminals... do

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0) (#169)
by procrasti on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 11:49:15 AM EST

if you accept that police can change a person's behaviour, and that different actions can elicit different behaviours, then if they elicit dangerous behaviours and that can be avoided, then they must be partly responsible for those dangerous behaviours.

I don't think they are as responsible the driver trying to avoid them, but they did have a role in the death of the child. Whether the child's death was 'worth' it depends on what they were trying to catch the guy for... If he stole a bottle from a liquour store, they probably should not have chased him high speed through a built up area, if he's been going around blowing up kindergartens, it might be worth it.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you can influence crminial behavior? (none / 0) (#171)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 12:57:11 PM EST

you mean if i say "this is the law, and i will vigorously enforce it" versus "this is the law, and if you're big enough of an asshole to threaten people's lives, i won't enforce it"

is it possible those two attitudes have a different influence on criminal behavior? is that what you are trying to say?

I don't think they are as responsible the driver trying to avoid them, but they did have a role in the death of the child

no, never

you don't blame the police for what criminals do, i can never accept what you are saying, it goes against personal responsibility, and once you are willing to defy personal responsibility, you've ruined the entire basis for any moral, legal, or ethical code of conduct in any society, ever

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

What part do you disagree with? (none / 0) (#177)
by procrasti on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 01:26:06 PM EST

  1. Police can effect the behaviour of a criminal.
  2. Different police actions will elicit different behaviours from a criminal.
  3. A criminal speeding away from police already is not going to slow down and drive 'safely' through crowded areas with police still behind them.
  4. The criminals may slow down if the police stop persuing them.
  5. Eliciting a dangerous behaviour in a criminal can put bystanders at greater risk.
  6. Someone who knowingly elicits dangerous behaviour in others is partly to blame if those others do harm.
  7. There are alternatives to high speed car chases.
  8. The above imply that if police take actions that elicit dangerous behaviours from a criminal, when they have alternative means of dealing with the criminal, they are (partly) responsible for what happens.
  9. I'm not arguing with you that the law should or should not be enforced, but whether the police chasing criminals in speeding cars have any responsibility in the death of any bystanders hit by the criminal.
  10. Something entirely different.
  11. If we don't punish the helicopters the terrorists will get away in fast cars smuggled in by fish that grow in trees.


-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
What part do you disagree with? (none / 1) (#181)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 02:25:52 PM EST

  1. i killed my wife because my pastor said she was wicked
  2. i shot the cop because i saw it in the video game i was playing
  3. i killed my child because it was in the plot fo the movie i just saw
  4. i raped the waitress because i like to watch pornography featuring waitresses
  5. i shot my boss because this book i read indicted corporate life as the center of all evil
  6. i ran over the kid because the police were chasing me in the car i stole
what does PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY mean to you?

if a criminal is willing to risk people's lives to steal car, then that is MORE reason to chase and capture him, not LESS

again, again, again, again: THE POLICE HAVE NO BLAME FOR WHAT A CRIMINAL DOES

THE CRIMINAL, AND ONLY THE CRIMINAL BEARS RESPONSIBILTY FOR WHAT HE DOES

next you are going to tell me have to outlaw violent tv and violent videogames? because it influences behavior?

if you can understand why that idea bullshit, WHY CAN'T YOU SEEM THE SAME ISSUE OF PERSONAL ACCOUNABILITY IS AT PLAY HERE

i see flashing sirens, a cop yelling pull over: what do i do?

  1. i speed up
  2. i slow down
what is the difference when it comes to police influence?

THERE IS NONE: I MADE THE CHOICE AND I ALONE

again: personal accountability

if you break that concept, do you have any idea of what else you break in how we deal with the world as individuals and as a society?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You argue for police to be irresponsible in their (none / 0) (#183)
by procrasti on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 02:49:27 PM EST

actions.

It looks to me like you choose to disagree with item number 10, 'something entirely different'. Therefore you think cutting down trees will reduce fish crime related death. As you think unilaterlly you will want to force the entire world to cut down their trees too.

Did I suggest that criminals shouldn't get harder penalties for avoiding arrest, car theft, dangerous driving, reckless endangerment and manslaughter? A more thinking response later though might mean that the first four charges can be bought against the criminals rather than all five.

Do you not think that the police should be held just a tiny weeny little bit accountable and responsible when people die during something they were actively involved in?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

can i be half pregnant? (none / 0) (#188)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 04:53:12 PM EST

can i half accountable for my actions?

which is it? people are accountable for the actions they perform, or are they are not?

either you agree they should stop selling violent videogames and pornography because they can induce people to commit violent acts, or you admit that whoever is blaming their crimes on video games or pornography is just an asshole trying to avoid responsibility

which is it?

choose

and now either you agree they should stop chasing criminals in stolen cars because they can induce accidents, or you admit that whoever is blaming their hitting of pedestrians on the police is just an asshole trying to avoid responsibility

which is it?

choose

do you dislike the retarded busybodies who want to blame criminality on videogames and movies?

do you agree they don't understand the concept of personal accountability?

LOOK IN THE MIRROR: THAT'S YOU

now go ahead, stammer at me about fish and trees

you understand what i am saying

so CHOOSE: you agree with the concept of personal accountability or you don't?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Can only one person be responsible? (none / 0) (#210)
by procrasti on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:36:09 PM EST

You keep saying the police are not responsible because they have no effect on a person's behaviour, yet the very fact that you are pulling over and stopping proves they are affecting your behaviour.  If your behaviour is run, you run, if its stop you stop. I keep telling you that the criminal is responsible for their actions, yet you can't accept that the police should also be responsible for theirs. Everytime I say that police should be responsible for their actions you say that people should be responsible for their own actions like it doesn't include police...

Don't you think that someone involved in someones death should be held accountable for it? If that person had other options that weren't taken, shouldn't it be questions why those other options weren't taken?

If a guard as an M16, and a guy is getting away with a CD from a large mall, does it make sense for him to spray everyone with bullets in order to be 'tough on crime'?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you're so fucking retarded (none / 0) (#214)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:05:21 PM EST

me: "i think the vigorous pursuit of crime is of paramount importance"

you: "why do you want to machine gun shoplifters?"

just as fucking retarded as

me: "i think marijuana should be legalized"

you: "why do you support pedophilia?"

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The machine gun is someone in a stolen car (none / 0) (#220)
by procrasti on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:25:02 PM EST

The trigger is the flashing lights and sirens.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
the person weilding the gun (none / 0) (#222)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:28:53 PM EST

is the person behind the wheel of the car

the trigger is how that asshole reacts to the lights and sirens

i chopped down a tree and it fell on my neighbor's property

my neighbor goes ballistic and kills my daughter in response

i'm responsible for my daughter's death?

the escalation of the scenario is the fault of the criminal, not the police

the police response to a car theft by giving pursuit is the baseline expectation society has for those who guard it from crime

the criminal bears sole responsibility for speeding up when seeing sirens


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

analogies are weak (none / 0) (#261)
by procrasti on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 03:54:24 PM EST

Police can make decisions?  Should they be responsible for their decisions... Here are the possible actions the police could take, the payoffs, cost and ongoing deterent value.

A0: Pursue (notice its a verb) a now dangerously speeding car towards a built up area (where you know a march is going on, for example).
A1: Back off try to catch them later.
A2: Shoot shoplifter with M16.
A3: Chase shoplifter and shout stop at him, have a cigarrette at the car park boundry.

P0: Catch criminal now.
P1: Catch criminal in some time period.
P2: Never catch criminal.

C0: Child doesn't die.
C1: Child dies.

D0: Number of cars not stolen because criminal is caught.
D1: Number of CDs not stolen because shoplifter is caught.

Notice that the actions of the criminals has NOTHING to do with the above?

Now, you are saying that you should maximize D0 irrespective of C1, and therefore the police must choose A0, and are never responsible for C1. If the same was true of D1, you would choose A2.

Rationally you assign a value to a child's life and use that to decide a policy on persuit - similar to how decisions are made when deciding where to build hospitals, and the lives lost due to the time it takes for ambulances to arrive.

You could decide on never attempting to get any criminals and no one innocent would ever die in a police persuit... Or you could go with your ZeroTolerence approach, which is equally absurd... IRL people have to make decisions, and if they can never be held accountable for the result of those decisions, what is to stop them from being reckless, lawless?

Nevermind the fact that the probabilities and payoffs of these outcomes vary with location, time, knowledge, technology, etc... If a person can choose their actions and has reasonable knowledge of what could result, how are they not responsible for that action.

If, when the case is examined, it was found that an innocent death was a very unlikely, unforseable or acceptable result of persuing a criminal towards a school just after closing time then fine by me. Until that is shown, they should be held responsible.

You will notice this has nothing to do with the penalties or punishments given to criminals. So, please try and remember that I agree that the criminals are completely responsible in their part of what happened (including manslaughter, etc...).   But you keep arguing that police should be completely irresponsible... even you can see that is absurd.

BTW, your analogy is flawed, if you cut down the tree on your neighbours house to pay him back for sleeping with your wife (justice), and in his anger he grabs a brick and throws it at you (elicited response), you avoid it but the brick kills your daughter (outcome)... Well, I suspect you might just be guilty of manslaughter.

On the good side though, maybe your wife will stop sleeping around.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

broken window theory (none / 0) (#266)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 04:24:17 PM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Windows

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Broken record theory (none / 0) (#310)
by procrasti on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:58:14 AM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/user/uid:36140

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
You're being intentionally dense. (none / 0) (#304)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 09:57:21 PM EST

Your style of trolling is impressive, and k5 wouldn't be the same without it. But christ, please try to stick to the articles where it's not so fuckign evil sounding.

Here's an example:

You're a uniformed officer, you have a report of some whackjob asshole, reportedly with a machine gun hidden in his coat. You spot him in the lobby of some public building, just as he's heading toward the exit. If you yell "stop!" and start running, he won't be able to leave before you can draw your weapon and stop him.

This is what you would want? To be tough on crime? You endanger everyone in that lobby, when he tries to shoot his way out.

On the other hand, you might discreetly follow him until you can apprehend him where it's safer. He might get away though.

Admittedly, there are lots of variables. Maybe he's so dangerous, someone will definitely die if he gets away, maybe he's going to kill many people... so chasing him now is the lesser of two evils. No one disputes this.

But simply making "tough on crime" the only criteria that influences your decision is incompetence, maybe even negligent.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

That explains why (none / 0) (#151)
by bml on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:46:43 AM EST

Norway is a rathole effectively controlled by criminal gangs, à la Mad Max, while the US is a peaceful utopia.

The Internet is vast, and contains many people. This is the way of things. -- Russell Dovey
[ Parent ]
that's absolutely true (none / 0) (#161)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:42:58 AM EST

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_car_the_cap

norway ranks fifth in the world in car thefts

way to go peaceful norway


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Even truer than that (none / 0) (#165)
by bml on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:58:36 AM EST

Not only their car theft rate is 30% higher than the one in the US, but they also have 1/4 the US murder rate... Wait...

But no, car theft is a better example.

The Internet is vast, and contains many people. This is the way of things. -- Russell Dovey
[ Parent ]

guess what asshole (none / 0) (#166)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 11:01:36 AM EST

i am anti-gun ownership

getting rid of guns would take care of that problem

i say: be tough on crime, and tighten gun ownership

welcome to my wacky wacky world


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

anti gun (none / 0) (#178)
by Hellkitten on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 01:27:00 PM EST

Good for you, but I don't think it will ever happen in the USA

What you might hope to achieve is outlawing the sale and ownership of concealable weapons. You get less risk of a gang member walking into a shop with a fully automatic handgun, but you can still defend your home with a shotgun. Also you can still go hunting or use that same weapon to overthrow your opressive government, which I believe is/was the argument for "the right to bear arms". You don't need conceilable weapons for anything besides criminal activity



[ Parent ]
wrong (none / 0) (#182)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 02:32:09 PM EST

you don't need guns at all

so that a few rednecks can shoot dear is no argument for the rest of us to have to worry about assholes with guns

additionally, the whole "overthrow the oppressive government" concept is simply paranoid schizophrenia, which is a FURTHER reason to outlaw guns, as they are very attractive to paranoid schizophrenics who think the CIA is planting bugs on their toilet seat

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You're arguing with yourself (none / 0) (#273)
by Hellkitten on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:03:40 PM EST

so that a few rednecks can shoot dear is no argument for the rest of us to have to worry about assholes with guns

I never mad any claim that rednecks should be allowed to shoot deer, at the cost of you having to worry. But if you want to outlaw all guns you will meet that argument. That was my intended statement, do you disagree with it?

Likewise I told you about the argument that you need availability of guns to "throw down the opressive government" (without which you guys would still be a british colony), and the "right to defend my home" argument. Now if you try to outlaw only conceilable weapons those arguments don't apply, and you have a somewhat higher chance at success. Go do that, and when you're done you can try for outlawing all guns.



[ Parent ]
dude (none / 0) (#279)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:14:10 PM EST

owning a gun is retarded

it increases your chances of getting shot, not decrease them

owning a gun is the triumph of ego over common sense


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Arguing with yourself again (none / 0) (#334)
by Hellkitten on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:01:10 PM EST

owning a gun is retarded it increases your chances of getting shot, not decrease them

Your statement doesn't contradict anything I said.

But if you want do outlaw guns (or anything else for that matter) you will have to deal with retarded people

Do you agree that you have a higher chance of sucess if you try to outlaw only conceilable guns, allowing shotguns and rifles, even if only retarded people would want to own them? Do you agree that beeing successful at getting rid of conceilable weapons will decrease your chance of getting shot, more than failing to get rid of all guns would?



[ Parent ]
Honest answer for an honest question. (none / 1) (#176)
by Hellkitten on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 01:20:02 PM EST

The amazing thing is that there are not a lot of episodes where criminals escape from car chases and don't get caught.

this is the part i don't uderstand: how do you have dramatic success at enforcement by relaxing enforcement? how does that work? honest question

You catch the guy later, when he's not in a car.

Sadly I don't really think this is an option to you in the US because you're population and poulation density is a lot bigger and finding the perp later would probably be near impossible

One could argue that this gives a higher rate of car theft, but I don't know any country ,sufficiently like Norway in other respects that do have police engage in car chases, to do the comparison. On the other hand the cost to society of a higher theft rate would have to be compared to the cost to society from the actual chase, with it's increased risk of property damage, injuries and loss of life.

I can't come up with an answer saying "This way is better" but the question is an interesting one



[ Parent ]
like all things in life (none / 0) (#215)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:08:21 PM EST

it's a choice between the lesser of two evils

as far as i can tell, the number of regretable incidents that go up because of a harder crime approach is dwarfed by the suffering of innocents deprived of their cars from a softer crime approach


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I like you perspective on life (none / 0) (#249)
by procrasti on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:36:45 AM EST

Poor suffering innocents deprived of their cars vs rejoicing affluent (probably criminal) family with only the minor inconvienience of not having their child anymore. Serves them right for associating with criminals (well the their children associating with the bonets of cars stolen by criminals anyway.)

Only an idiotic American would consider car theft more important than a child's life.

Tough on crime, tough on life.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

broken window theory (none / 0) (#272)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:03:18 PM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Windows

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
High speed chases (3.00 / 2) (#172)
by Sgt York on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 01:07:13 PM EST

But there is a better way that both protects the bystanders and gets the guy.

It was proposed here in Houston a while back after a string of particularly nasty police chases. Cops start to chase a guy. If the guy enters a residential area, or is going crazy fast on the side streets, or in the cops' judgement it gets to be a hazard to bystanders, they call in the helicopter and the cars drop back. The helicopter follows the guy, with cars moving in from various points of the compass, making a series of rings around the guy. They make sure they stay out of sight, maybe a block away, while the helo tracks the guy. They wait until he stops, and the cars move in, nabbing the bad guy while he's on foot.

Granted, this takes a good deal of manpower, and not every city has the resources to do it, but it's a good alternative where it's possible.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

i agree 100% (3.00 / 2) (#174)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 01:12:25 PM EST

but it requires the addition of higher technology

if that higher tech isn't there, then you pursue the car

stopping to pursue crime vigorously because a criminal just has to be more of an asshole to avoid being pursued (putting innocent bystanders in jeopardy) is not a valid pov

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm usually content... (none / 0) (#185)
by cr8dle2grave on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 03:26:55 PM EST

...to leave you to play in your little sandbox. I have respect for your craft ;-P But I simply can't pass this one over:
stopping to pursue crime vigorously because a criminal just has to be more of an asshole to avoid being pursued (putting innocent bystanders in jeopardy) is not a valid pov
Sorry, but that's friggin' insane. The single most important distinction to be made between operative roles of the military and the domestic police (who are in priciple peace officers) concerns the issue of "collateral damage".

Unintended or collateral casualties are an unfortunate reality wherever military operations occur; it's in the very nature of the beast. On the other hand, unintended casualties are entirely unacceptable in the pursuit of civil law enforcement. It's also highly counterproductive. Peace officers are most effective when they are respected and well regarded by the community in which they operate. Recklessly endangering the population contributes significantly to an erosion of the trust necessary for peace officers to do their job effectively.

It is part of the price of a free society that we must tolerate that some crimials will inevitably go unpunished. The cost of perfect enforcement is simply too high. Giving in to the impulse to tighten up law enforcement will invariably result in more innocents being victimized by the system which is supposedly there to protect them.

The opposite side of the coin is, of course, that military units make horrible peace officers, which is the underlying rationale for why they have always been prohibited from the serving in that capicity in the US (by convention originally and then by law in the form of the Posse Comitatus Act). Need I even mention the various failures of the UN's blue helmets?

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
who is talking about military units? (none / 0) (#191)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 04:57:56 PM EST

me: "i think the vigorous pursuit of crime is of paramount importance"

you: "why do you want the military to police your community"

what the fuck?

me: "i think marijuana should be legalized"

you: "why do you support pedophilia?"

;-P

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You know why (none / 0) (#198)
by cr8dle2grave on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 05:47:17 PM EST

A common point of reference perhaps? You're arguing for rules of engagement appropriate to the military, not civilian law enforcement. We hamstring our justice system for very good reasons. Primarily its because they, which ultimately is we, can't be trusted.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
i don't want you to trust the police (none / 1) (#200)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 06:02:39 PM EST

fuck the police, there are dirty or lazy cops everywhere

as for my rules of engagement, i want vigorous pursuit of crime, not killing of mosquitos with elephant guns. if someone shoplifts the quikimart, i'm not calling for an airstrike, understand me? again, it's like i'm talking about legalizing marijuana and you think i'm talking about legalizing pedophilia, geez!

what i'm asking for is if the police witness a crime, then the police pursue the criminal. that's it. plain and simple. that's ALL I AM SAYING

now you would be right if i defined "vigorous pursuit" as something the POLICE do to put civilians in harms way. then your military analogy would be sound. because what you are talking about is the military/ police ignoring collateral damage in the pursuit of their goals

BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE POLICE ARE IGNORING, ARE WE? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT CRIMINALS ARE IGNORING!

so when you don't want "rules of engagement appropriate to the military, not civilian law enforcement" you are dead on!

SO WHY AREN'T YOU PERSECUTING THE CRIMINALS FOR DOING EXACTLY WHAT BOTHERS YOU

geez!

scenario for you:

guy takes kid hostage. police surround him. guy says he'll kill kid unless police let him leave. the police botch an attempt to snipe the guy, so the guy shoots the kid

who is reponsible for killing the kid? the police? or the criminal?

according to all matters of ethics and morality and legality and logic, THE CRIMINAL IS 100% RESPONSIBLE

not 99%, not 60%

100-FUCKING-PERCENT

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

High speed pursuits, remember? (none / 0) (#203)
by cr8dle2grave on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 06:24:52 PM EST

If a fleeing suspect gets to a car and takes off in populated area, they get placed into the "ones that got away" category. To do otherwise is to adopt rules of engagement in which innocent bystanders are expendable, which is unacceptable in a law enforcement scenario.

You keep trying to make this an issue of responsibility and ethics, which it's not. Or rather, I don't care one whit about the ethical issue of responsibility here. It's a simple risk/reward calculus. Capturing a fleeing suspect doesn't represent reward enough to justify placing innocent bystanders at risk.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
criminals (none / 1) (#205)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 06:37:53 PM EST

if you don't pursue them vigorously, you are sending them a message: be more bold, be more craven, be more cruel, and you will be free to do whatever you want to

you are rewarding their criminality by saying if you escalate your criminal behavior, you have a higher chance of being successful

i think the more criminal the behavior, the more vigorous the effort to punish it should be

for example, if the police are following a car thief, and the car thief escalates the situation into more criminality: pushing the pedal to the metal, putting lives at risk, then the car thief has just announced he has no problem committing murder in the pursuit of free cars. AT THAT VERY MOMENT, the police have a moral obligation to pursue the thief faster and escalate their own effort to catch the thief-cum-murderer. it is the CRIMINAL who is choosing to escalate to collateral damage, NOT the police. which immediately labels the car thief as something more than a simple car thief: he is happy to be a potential killer

but in your world, your saying "if you want to just steal a car, we will try to punish you, but if you are willing to kill in order to get your free car, we won't try to punish you"

i think that the vigorousness with which the police pursue the criminal should be directly proportionate to the callousness and brazenness of the criminal

but you are telling me that there should be a threshold: if the criminal gets brazen and callous enough, efforts at punishing the criminal should be retarded

no, i don't understand that way of thinking

so if i act cold and callous enough, i can just take whatever i want in this world?

if i try to rape a woman, and the police approach me, all i have to do is raise the stakes- hold a knife to her throat, and the police will let me get away?

you simply don't understand criminality and boldness

if you reward boldness, criminals will be bolder, get it?

you seem very naive to me


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

First do no harm (none / 0) (#206)
by cr8dle2grave on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:06:32 PM EST

Should be the motto for civilian law enforcement as well as doctors. I'm not naive. I'm fully aware that it may mean an uptick in certain types of crime. I'm just convinced that an increased level of criminality is far preferable to the alternative.

By the way, I also advocate procedural reforms to the criminal justice system which would in effect make it much, much more difficult to secure a conviction. Not because I'm for "criminal rights" per se, but because I have absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for convicting the guilty.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
err... (none / 0) (#207)
by cr8dle2grave on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:07:54 PM EST

"I have absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for convicting the guilty"

should, of course, read:

I have absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for convicting the innocent

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
you're stupid (none / 0) (#211)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:37:07 PM EST

going soft on crime leads to more crime

which leads to more suffering of innocents

going hard on crime leads to more jailing of the innocent

BY A FRACTIONAL AMOUNT OF THE SUFFERING CAUSED BY A SOFT ON CRIME SOCIETY

what you care about: relieving the suffering of the innocent, is sabotaged by your own position on crime

you work against your own goals

you are a naive idealist: the criminal justice system is composed of human beings. human beings make mistakes. there will ALWAYS be innocent people caught in it, even innocent people executed. the very idea of this revulses you from the concept of criminal justice?

naive, idealistic: useless and counterproductive to the very principles you care about

if you stop fighting crime or fight crime more softly, the suffering of innocents in society goes up by orders of magnitude more than any relief of the innocents in the criminal justice system you can demonstrate

of course you fight every way you can to relieve errors in the system

but mangling the system and compromising its very goals is not the means by which you do that

my position, going hard on crime, results in less innocents being hurt than your position

mental exercise: if you go harder on crime than you want to, you might catch 100 more assholes, and persecute 2 more innocent people

those 100 assholes, free to roam society: the damage they are doing to innocents in open society dwarfs the samage done to the handful of extra innocents in the system

in reality, you are given choices in complex situations to choose between the lesser of two evils

go ahead and shoot the messenger and howl at me from your ivory tower if you like, but i think i've just educated you on some very simple aspects of reality and criminal punishment you don't seem to grasp


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Oh the wonderful US (none / 0) (#212)
by tetsuwan on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:56:52 PM EST

2% of the population in jail, and still higher crime rates then Sweden with 0.5 %.

There's your theory. In shreds.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

you would be correct (none / 1) (#213)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:01:55 PM EST

if i were in the business of defending the united states

fuck the united states, i'm talking about what >>I<< believe

the world is drowning in nationalistic retards just like you, and it's a shame


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#218)
by tetsuwan on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:11:34 PM EST

You believe that the answer is in your heart, because your heart never knows no faults.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

so any one with conviction in their beliefs (none / 0) (#221)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:25:08 PM EST

is deluded?

i can't say to you i am a human being and i am frail, but i believe in what i say and i say what i believe?

what more do you expect from any person in this world except this level of honesty?

please, you're just more of the same:

me: "considering all of my life experience, i am convinced {fill in the blank} is the right thing to do"

you: "so you admit to drinking blood out of children's skulls and being an unsufferable egomaniac?"

;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No (none / 1) (#223)
by tetsuwan on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:32:42 PM EST

but people without eyes, ears and brains.

I've come to expect that you shout what you think at the top of your lungs. I've also come to expect that you totally disregard any argument or fact other people muster. I see rhetoric, but no sign of brain activity.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

and so this post of yours... (none / 0) (#225)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:47:57 PM EST

is a demonstration of a brain all aflutter with activity? (snicker)

demonstrate to me your eyes, ears and brains

show blind deaf and dumb me how arguing your way is the only way to argue...

oh now wait, what did you accuse me of in your grandparent post? ;-P

hmmm... i've never been guilty of so many crimes against humanity before, this is very distressing

luckily i have you close by my side to demonstrate how i am utterly devoid of any merit whatsoever

;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yes, it is very fortunate for you ;-) (none / 0) (#228)
by tetsuwan on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:07:28 PM EST

My argument is only that you also need to look at what creates criminals. The ironic thing about prisons is how they breed new crime. The harsher the punishment, the more you alienate the felon and make them sworn enemies of the society. If one third of a minority is sent to prison, how do you stop a culture of crime to root?

These are all things you will refuse to discuss with me, because they are not black and white, and you loathe shades of grey.

I compared countries, because in the West, the US is notorious both for being very hard on crime and having a huge prison population. I'm not comparing countries because I'm a nationalist. You should beware that you know almost nothing about me. It is not that I've been hiding, you haven't bothered to see.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

let me educate you about shades of grey (none / 0) (#231)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:18:57 PM EST

a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his family

is he a criminal? not in my eyes or most anyone else's

however, he keeps stealing...

eventually he acclimates himself to the pilfering of things that are not his, and continues stealing, long after his family is well taken care of

one day, while robbing a house, he surprises the owner, and in the ensuing scuffle, the man kills the owner

is he a criminal? in most everyone's eyes he is

now: PINPOINT ME THE EXACT MOMENT THE MAN BECAME A CRIMINAL

you can't, i can't

the man has descended into crime, gone through shade of gray after shade of gray

once, he most definitely was innocent

now, he most definitely is a criminal

but we don't where or when he crossed the line from innocent or criminal

the point is: just because we can't agree on WHERE the man became a criminal doesn't mean the man isn't a criminal, who should be punished, and his entirely responsible for his predicament in life

there is a difference between causation, and responsibility

in other words, if my mom treats me like shit, and i grow up to be a mass murderer, you can say my mom created me, caused me

but that doesn't change the fact i am a dangerous criminal, or excuse my behavior, or excuse my personal responsibility

when you go soft on crime, why are you going osft on crime? because they played a violent videogame? because they read pornography? because the wathed a violent movie?

bullshit

if you commit a crime, you are responsible for the crime AND YOU ALONE

for when you transgress the concept of personal accountability into causation, you destroy the entire basis for any moral, ethical, legal, or logical framework surrounding crime and justice in any society, anywhere, any time in history


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You are missing my point (none / 1) (#235)
by tetsuwan on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:56:48 PM EST

I was not trying to make a abortion law type of argument at all. (Where does life start and all that crap ...)

I'm saying that the guy who steals a loaf of bread (because he is hungry) should be punished if caught. I'm saying, that if the punishment is not in proportion to the crime (oh, we will disagree about the details here), this will spread feelings of unfairness. With draconian enough measures (cut off hands etc), people will be more willing to help the criminal escape justice. Also, associating petty thieves with robbers in prisons tends to make cut-throats. Prisons are the main training ground for several types of crimes.

I'll be the universalist this time: crime cannot be stomped out once and for all. Rules will be broken. Madmen will kill for strange reasons. There is no sure-fire "the harder you stomp the less crime you will have". The only sure thing about stomping harder is that more innocent people will be hurt. OTOH, you certainly have to stomp at crime to limit it.

For judging, I can quantify my beliefs: for lesser crimes 9 out of 10 sentenced should be guilty. For the most serious crimes: at least 99 out of 100. This is over-simplifying bullshit, I know. It's just to make my standpoint clear. Of course, I do not accept the death penalty. I can't find a single case of repeated (post-sentence) murder in Sweden. The case for the death penalty is very bad, at least here.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

no, you push harder (none / 0) (#262)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 04:15:58 PM EST

of course we agree: crime never goes away, you seem to think i think we can solve crime or something

so it's just a matter of pressure: push harder against crime, you get less of it

of course the harder you push the more innocents you hurt

except that people make too much of this issue, it's a small issue, and, just like crime, is a problem that will never go away: innocents caught in the system... you fight this, but does it make you fight crime softer? no!

i won't paint you as an absolutist who wants to let all crime go free if you don't paint me as an absolutist who wants to punish crime like stealing bread with cutting their hands off, sound fair?

i want us to push harder than we do, you want us to push less

you have to understand my background: in the 1970s and 1980s, new york city was a cesspool of crime, mainly because of soft on crime attitudes. people were fed up with assholes getting off on technicalities and light sentences. so in the 1990s, nyc got harder on crime

the result today is that in 2005, nyc is one of the safest cities in the us, and the world. our crime rates have bottomed out in rates not only not seen in decades, but in rates NEVER seen before. in the 1970s, they were talking about the death of nyc. in 2005, real estate prices are stratospheric, and it all because of the broken window theory that other cities in the us and the world are copying now because nyc is so successful with the theory

the theory is that the tolerance of minor crimes: grafitti, smashing windows, leads to an environment where larger crimes florish. it's psychological: no one cares about the crime if the minor stuff is tolerated, so criminals are emboldened to attempt larger crimes

so what the city did under giuliani is it went hard on minor crimes like turnstile jumping (getting on the subway for free), etc. result: all crimes went down, including the hard ones

so you can argue philosophically all you want, but i have lived through a social experiment that proves you must punish minor crimes hard to improve a society

please don't paint me as a sharia law enforcer, as i am not, and you would be unfair to depict me as such. the punishment of course should fit the crime. but the PURSUIT of crime should not be relaxed, no matter how minor

all i know is, i don't know where you live, but i would bet $100,000 dollars that whatever city you live in, your police department has or is studying new york city's successes, and plans on or is mimicking our successes


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

First balanced reply evah!!!! (none / 1) (#270)
by tetsuwan on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 04:42:34 PM EST

I know the crime history of New York. To some extent you have moved the problem out of the city. Poor people can't afford to live in the city. But I agree that vandalizing and public displays of disrespect of the commons should be hunted down. I really wished the Swedish police made some efforts in areas such as bicycle theft. Now, getting your bike stolen is an everyday experience.

In Stockholm, there are a lot of anarchistic pundits who think that turnstile jumping is a way of protesting against the system. "The subway shouldn't cost anything to use!!" Yeah right, idiots. The shame is that they have 50 % support among people under 30.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

good we've decoupled the argument (none / 0) (#277)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:09:33 PM EST

you can vigorously pursue low level crime, and improve life for everyone

the OTHER argument is the strictness of the punishment for whatever crime we are talking about

our problem is that when i say "get tough on crime" you heard me say "cut people's hands off for stealing"

and when you say "soften approaches to criminality" i heard you say "let people get away with theft"

now that we've decoupled the argument into one of enforcement and one of punishment, we wind up agreeing with each other

happy days


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

broken window theory (none / 0) (#263)
by circletimessquare on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 04:23:05 PM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Windows

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Idealistic? Moi? (none / 0) (#239)
by cr8dle2grave on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 11:59:06 PM EST

Remember who you're talking to. In any case, while I often immensely enjoy watching your routine from the sidelines, I've no particular desire to put on the clown suit and play a bit part in the circus show.

Do carry on. Toodles, sir.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
fee society? (none / 0) (#351)
by dke on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 05:33:54 AM EST

"It is part of the price of a free society that we must tolerate that some crimials will inevitably go unpunished."

You got to be kidding me, in which way is a society free when it's individual rights are open to violation without consequences?

Please allow me to shoot you on sight to keep our society "free" and go unpunished.
Nothing is ever easy
[ Parent ]

You don't understand law... (none / 0) (#362)
by procrasti on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 07:25:57 AM EST

He didn't say anything about being free from consequences, just that some criminals will go unpunished.... They still have the risk of being punished...

You also must understand that any system that attempts to classify something will either generate false positives or false negatives.  In law, that means you will convict innocent people and clear guilty people.  In order to decrease the number of innocent people you classify as guilty, you must increase the number of guilty people you classify as innocent. Therefore a free society demands that guilty people will go free far more often than innocent people will be convicted.


-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

I am voting +1 on this story simply (none / 0) (#92)
by chlorus on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 08:15:51 PM EST

on the strength of this comment

Peahippo: Coked-up internet tough guy or creepy pedophile?
[ Parent ]

IAWTP (none / 0) (#95)
by less than three on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 08:41:28 PM EST

Many times over. Could not have put it better myself.

--
orz
[ Parent ]
So did the kid have to die? (none / 1) (#117)
by redelm on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:26:48 PM EST

Sure, the cops can manufacture a case for shooting. That doesn't make it right. That kid didn't have to die either. Cops can (or should be) able to tell live guns from pellet pistols (except replicas, although I think they now require orange muzzles).

They didn't need to kill the kid. They could have backed off, kept surveilance, surrounded and talked down.

Police shootings aren't just dangerous for the suspect. They're also incredibly dangerous by innocent bystanders. And none too easy on the shooting cops.



[ Parent ]

Oh please (1.25 / 12) (#132)
by kitten on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 06:06:00 AM EST

Are you saying that if someone pulls one of these, you can immediately tell the difference between that and a real gun, from a distance of twenty feet, while it's being waved around or pointed at things (or you)?

I couldn't, and neither could you, and a cop probably can't, and his job is to neutralize a clear and present danger with lethal force, not to stand around asking if he can please get a closer look at that thing to make sure it's real first.
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
man you're fucking retarded (2.25 / 4) (#133)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 06:15:08 AM EST

a person who pulls a gun decides to make a situation about life or death

the cops didn't do that, the guy who pulled the gun did

are the cops time travellers? do they know the person's intent in foresight?

are the cops mind readers? they know what is in a person's heart by glancing at him?

are the cops omnipotent gods? they can tell the difference between a fake gun and real gun?

are the cops made of kevlar? when someone pulls a gun on them they can casually walk away and wait for backup?

you're really fucking retarded

why don't you try to understand reality and stop trying to think the world works like it does in "the matrix"


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

He waved a bomb at them? (none / 1) (#303)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 09:37:23 PM EST

This situation is no different. Alpizar refused to take his meds,

This is a crime, but not only that, a crime that deserves lethal response?

claimed to have a bomb,

This is disputed. And yet the people who claim he deserved it claim this is the case, even if he didn't say that.

and refused orders from a federal air marshal

Who may not have identified themselves as such, who were in plainclothes. If he was paranoid that there was a bomb, and suddenly people start pointing guns not in uniform... maybe he thought they were the terrorists.

with a drawn and loaded pistol,

This means nothing by itself, except maybe that you should run. Running from police is bad, running from unidentified gunmen is just a good idea.

then attempted to evade the air marshal and escape the plane.

Reiteration of your previous points. Running away on a plane naturally means getting off of it. It also means not stopping when someone screams "STOP!". But using the word "evading" makes it sound more sinister, I'll agree.

It is not about justice, it is not a tragedy,

It's not a tragedy that a man dies when there was no good reason for him to die?

and it is not a hate crime. He made several stupid decisions, and was killed as a result.

Stupid decisions are not a reason enough to shoot someone dead. Christ. We all make stupid decisions. I don't want to be shot for mine, when I inevitably make them. Arguably, it was a stupid decision to shoot him. Should we shoot those air marshals as a response?

Congratulations on your recent discovery that your actions, and those of the people around you, have consequences, and that sometimes they are not pleasant.

So you're appealing to authority as a justification? That "oh yeh, stpe out of line, unpleasant things happen"? Fuck, are we in 1935 Germany here or something?

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

So you want to begin... (none / 0) (#349)
by gr3y on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 10:57:05 PM EST

by reducing the argument to the absurd?

No thanks, not today. You have obviously never been in a position where you have been asked to make a decision that may ultimately cost someone their life. That decision isn't a meticulously-crafted checklist of things that have to happen before you're allowed to squeeze the trigger. It all happens at once, and you're riding an adrenal high, and you can't hear someone shouting in your ear because the sound of the blood rushing behind your eardrum is deafening and your ears have literally squeezed shut in anticipation of the shot.

Come back and argue when you know something, really. And not something you've read about in a book. You're arguing from a deficit of knowledge, and any attempt to rebut that is just going to make it more evident.

Go spend a few days on guard at an airport, or at an ammunition handling area, or anywhere the potential exists that a mistake on your part will result in massive loss of life, and of people you know and love. Then come argue with me.

Of course, if you do that, there will be no argument. You'll agree with me that it was no tragedy.

I am a disruptive technology.
[ Parent ]

This is the most ignorant comment (none / 0) (#354)
by weedaddict on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:21:25 PM EST

I have ever read.

Reality has a certain cynical bias - Cattle Rustler
[ Parent ]
as liberal nut (2.00 / 4) (#88)
by killfile on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 07:50:55 PM EST

As a liberal nut who thinks the government had a hand in 911, this story didn't bother me. The result would (or should) have been the same pre 9/11, pre patriot act. It's a tradegy that a mentally ill person was killed. I wish he could have been merely incapacitated instead of killed, he didn't deserve to die. And yes, real terrorists probably wouldn't have been acting as he would. But what were the law enforcement supposed to do? Certainly a there should be a full investigation, and if he did not actually threaten to have a bomb, then this is a clear mistake. This is pretty much the same of the case of someone pulling a fake gun on a cop and the cop shooting him dead.

Actually... (none / 1) (#247)
by perplext on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:00:16 AM EST

This is pretty much the same of the case of someone pulling a fake gun on a cop and the cop shooting him dead.

Actually, based on the reports to emerge thus far, it's more similar to a case of a crazy guy running away from a cop, and the cop shooting him dead, and the cop claiming after the fact that the crazy guy had said that he had a gun, and nobody else nearby being able to verify this claim.

But hey, who am I to argue with a nut. :)

As far as the incident itself is concerned, I'm in agreement with most of the posters who've noted that outrage isn't called for (at least yet) but that a full investigation needs to take place.

Until we learn more, I'll reserve my outrage.

[ Parent ]

Article is misinformed on London shooting (3.00 / 5) (#91)
by Paul Jakma on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 08:12:30 PM EST

Paragraph about de Menezes is factually incorrect:

He was also heading in a direction to maximize danger and refused to stop.

He was never asked to stop. He wasn't approached openly by police at all until he was sitting on the train. (3 plain clothes surveillance officers had covertly accompanied him onto tube and were already in carriage with him, one sitting very close to him - the "Hotel 3" officer referred to in the leaked IPCC report, who initially restrained de Menezes while he was shot).

He was also shot by less specialized and trained police. Yes, it too was wrong. But not nearly as egregious.

This is incorrect. The officers involved were very likely highly-trained and specialised fire-arms officers from the Metropolitan police forces' Special Operations dept (SO19 likely). The other possibility is that they may have been SRR (Special Reconnaissance Regiment), military special forces, essentially SAS. (British MoD has confirmed military were involved with the operation that day, but say it was only as technical advisors). The modus operandi certainly fits strongly with SAS.

How does one threaten a bomb, anyway? (3.00 / 2) (#99)
by sudog on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:01:32 PM EST

"If you don't explode right this minute, I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue!"

"I know where your components live!"

"You extract yourself from that baggage right now, or I'm going to use too much voltage!"


GTA is set in Miami. (1.25 / 4) (#105)
by livus on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:54:26 PM EST

So I assume shooting random non-WASPs is quite normal for them. Hmm, so's CSI: MIami. And let's not forget Miami Vice. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure Miami was also the place where that British bird was jailed for making a joke.

Seriously, we all know that US airports have gone batshit insane post 9/11. This is why I will not travel via the US (I mean not just the random human rights abuses, but also the more mundane - thefts due to that unlocked luggage policy, unnecessray luggage transfers, insultingly barbaric plastic cutlery, restrictions on lavatory access, etc).

Maybe the article has a point that USians should be upset but as a non USian, it seems like one more symptom of the same disease.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

And let's not forget the classic, 'Miami Vice' (none / 1) (#109)
by nostalgiphile on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 10:19:36 PM EST

Which you, as a "non-Usian" who is apparently fascinated and repelled by American culture, would probably enjoy.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
I model myself on Don Johnson (none / 0) (#126)
by livus on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 04:30:13 AM EST

isn't it obvious?

You're quite right, though. I am fascinated and repelled by most cultures, including those of the USA (which makes its mainstream media product comparatively accessible - miami vice might be passe but we fascinated/repelled types can console ourselves with Paris Hilton).

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

He was so much cooler in nash (none / 1) (#144)
by nvb on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:07:32 AM EST


--
I'm smarter than the average bear.
[ Parent ]

Not sure I agree. (none / 1) (#118)
by Kal on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:44:14 PM EST

Seriously, we all know that US airports have gone batshit insane post 9/11.

Not sure I agree with that. I flew a bit before 9/11 and have flown quite a bit more since then. Aside from some airports wanting me to take my shoes off, and that even varies between security stations at the same airport, I haven't had any more difficulty than before.

thefts due to that unlocked luggage policy, unnecessray luggage transfers

Don't check baggage then. I've only ever had to the first time I flew and that's before I realized just how much you can pack in a carry on bag.

[ Parent ]
Hmm, maybe it's traveller's exaggerations (none / 0) (#127)
by livus on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 04:37:33 AM EST

and media hype. Interesting. I do know several people who have had stuff stolen during transfer via LA though.

I travel reasonably lightly, but for my purposes it would be pretty impractical (not to mention unhygenic and unprofessional) not to take something slightly more substantial on, say, a trip which lasts almost a month. Plus big-ass carry-on has its own inconveniences. It's just easier to avoid the place.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

Well (none / 1) (#238)
by Kal on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 11:12:44 PM EST

My carry ons aren't large. Doesn't take up any more space in the overhead compartment that those dorky wheeled luggage things. I've fit enough in there for a two week business trip without any trouble. Sure, I couldn't fit a months worth in there but I barely own two weeks worth of clothes, let alone a months worth. I'd have to do laundry regardless of what sized luggage item I brought.

Besides not having to worry about having anything taken I get out of the airport a lot quicker. The one time I checked baggage I hated the half hour wait for my luggage to come out. Much easier to walk off the plane and right out of the airport.

[ Parent ]
I agree (none / 0) (#278)
by livus on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 05:11:32 PM EST

I love trips within my own country for that very reason. It really is much easier to just have one bag.

But, I like backpacking, and I like doing all sorts of weird hiking and sightseeing and stuff (if you travel half way around the world you might as well make an event of it, uncool as some people may find that). On longhaul, where you may have to get off the plane in about three countries en route, my idea of carry-on is a small bag under the seat with my toothbrush, etc and a book.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

My carry-on (none / 1) (#289)
by Kal on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 07:09:24 PM EST

Is what I'd consider a medium sized bag that dangles off of my shoulder. It fits in the overhead just fine in most planes. I usually take my hiking pack along too and stick that under the seat in front of me, or if I take my backpacking pack I'll stand it in front of my legs.

When I was checking baggage I only had a smll carry-on as well with a change of clothes, toothbrush, and whatnot in it.

But, I like backpacking, and I like doing all sorts of weird hiking and sightseeing and stuff (if you travel half way around the world you might as well make an event of it, uncool as some people may find that)

Same here and if I ever get a chance to go around the world there's a ton of places I'd like to stop and do some hiking or climbing. For right now though I've got more than enough to keep me occupied, practically right out my back door, to think about heading anywhere else.

[ Parent ]
it's a cultural thing (none / 0) (#339)
by livus on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 07:16:19 PM EST

there's still a lot for me to do here, but we have this bizarre fixation with the rest of the planet.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
The rest of the planet is ok, I suppose. (none / 0) (#341)
by Kal on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 11:38:50 PM EST

I've had a desire to see Nepal for the longest time and I'd love to explore a bit of Northern Canada, and there's lot to be said for backpacking around northern Spain, Italy, and Mexico too but I've got some of the best hiking and climbing in the world not 30 minutes away. I don't even have to sit next to the fat, stinky guy on the plane to get there so it's hard to beat.

[ Parent ]
that's so foriegn to me! (none / 0) (#342)
by livus on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 11:54:40 PM EST

I live in what is probably one of the most scenic, varied, beautiful etc places there is, but the rest of the world is just somewhere I want to go and check out for some reason. Like I said, it's cultural. Here you're more or less expected to do that.


---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
Utah, huh? (none / 0) (#350)
by FieryTaco on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 09:54:19 PM EST

NT

[ Parent ]
+6 (none / 0) (#353)
by livus on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:17:14 AM EST

Detroit

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
Florida. (none / 0) (#302)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 09:04:48 PM EST

Is also the state where bringing bookmarks onboard is illegal, and you can be fined $10,000 for it.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]
why? (3.00 / 8) (#142)
by khallow on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 08:16:12 AM EST

Why should there be outrage? You frankly don't understand a lot of stuff about this story. First, if the marshalls wanted to make an example of this guy, they would be able to throw a lot of felonies at him. They don't need to risk shooting him.

Second, why should someone risk the lives of innocent people on the thesis that it's unlikely this guy has a bomb?

An ugly possibility is that Mr Alpizar was unnecessarily shot in the jetway because it was convenient (minimal chance of hitting bystanders) and saved searching the terminal for him.

Yea. Let's let the guy who says he has a bomb run loose through the airport. That's a great idea.

Stating the obvious since 1969.

Why? (none / 0) (#301)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 09:01:53 PM EST

Second, why should someone risk the lives of innocent people on the thesis that it's unlikely this guy has a bomb?

Because the other assumption is that everyone has a bomb, on every single plane. If that's the case, and they shoot first, ask questions later, lots of people will die for such innocent things as panic attacks, using electronic devices that are allowable while in the air or parked, making rapid movements, or reaching into baggage.

Yea. Let's let the guy who says he has a bomb run loose through the airport. That's a great idea.

A guy who so far hasn't detonated a bomb that only the air marshals ever heard him mention. A guy who apparently can't detonate it, or isn't willing to.  A guy they can easily chase down in a contained area where they have inumerable backup instantly contactable on radio. Hell, do I understand correctly that he wasn't back in the airport, but on the tarmac outside, where there are wide open spaces where they can see where he goes? A place with not many bombable targets and only a few airport workers, not enough of a crowd to get lost in?

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

huh? (none / 0) (#316)
by khallow on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 09:22:15 AM EST

Because the other assumption is that everyone has a bomb, on every single plane. If that's the case, and they shoot first, ask questions later, lots of people will die for such innocent things as panic attacks, using electronic devices that are allowable while in the air or parked, making rapid movements, or reaching into baggage.

So everyone says they have a bomb and behaves eradically? No wonder my flying experience sucks.

A guy who so far hasn't detonated a bomb that only the air marshals ever heard him mention. A guy who apparently can't detonate it, or isn't willing to. A guy they can easily chase down in a contained area where they have inumerable backup instantly contactable on radio. Hell, do I understand correctly that he wasn't back in the airport, but on the tarmac outside, where there are wide open spaces where they can see where he goes? A place with not many bombable targets and only a few airport workers, not enough of a crowd to get lost in?

Or they can shoot the guy on the tarmac and not risk other people's lives. I'm not seeing your point.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Huh? (3.00 / 2) (#322)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 12:47:46 PM EST

Or they can shoot the guy on the tarmac and not risk other people's lives. I'm not seeing your point.

They can shoot everyone that they think has a 0.0000000001% chance of having a bomb, and avoid that risk too. As long as they only shoot 49.9% of passengers, they can even say they're trying to protect the majority.

He didn't say he had a bomb, according to some reports. According to others, he said the word bomb, but not "I have a bomb.". And Every other flight I've been on, someone has been erratic. People are afraid of flying, some have panic attacks. Others are rushing off to try and see dying loved ones. I certainly hope that being visibly nervous isn't cause for summary execution.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

Ironic (none / 1) (#340)
by pyro9 on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 07:50:49 PM EST

It sounds likely enough that he was freaking out thinking someone ELSE had a bomb. Ironically, he was gunned down while he thought he was escaping danger.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
Not tarmac (none / 0) (#352)
by davidduncanscott on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 07:44:14 PM EST

The reports I read indicated "jetway",like this one. Does anybody in the developed world climb down stairs on to the runway anymore?

Anyway, I have no idea how sturdy those walls are, but it's effectively a tunnel, and I'd imagine that an explosion might blow out both in to the terminal and back on to the aircraft.

[ Parent ]

Hmm. (none / 0) (#359)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 05:34:47 PM EST

Since 2000, I've only done that twice, when they put me on small commuter jets to make a connecting flight.

So from time to time.

I just couldn't remember where exactly they chased him down when I wrote that. Doesn't change my opinion though.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

just did a week ago (none / 0) (#360)
by khallow on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 10:21:34 PM EST

I got caught in a minor fender bender. Another jet brushed with it's wing tip, the rear end of the plane I was sitting in. Apparently, they didn't want to move either plane while passengers were on board, so we got unloaded the old fashioned way.

Further, you still walk on the tarmac when you're boarding small planes. I did that multiple times over the past ten years.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

If true (none / 0) (#179)
by krytae on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 02:11:27 PM EST

then this says that the "backpack" was a fanny pack and none of the quoted passengers heard him say "bomb".

It doesn't make much difference (none / 0) (#187)
by t1ber on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 03:55:20 PM EST

Really, would things have changed if it was a backpack or a fanny-pack?

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

Yes there would (none / 0) (#190)
by bobpence on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 04:56:41 PM EST

The "wearing the backpack on the front" might be hip with the kids in some neighborhoods, but is a little unusual, much like that Brazilian in London wearing the thick coat...

Only he wasn't wearing a thick coat, and the story went downhill from there until it was hard to support the police shooting. In this case, many little details seem to support the Air Marshals, but if some of them start changing, that support is weakened.

I have been assured that one of the passengers who did not hear "bomb" was in close proximity to the suspect at the time, yet this is not what I read in stories that focused on that passenger; in fact some accounts say that "the b-word" was used in the jetway, which could mean that only the Marshals lived to tell about it.

What is the likelihood that someone who says they have a bomb actually has a bomb? Much higher than for a random passerby. This guy, as I now understand things, needed to be completely incapacitated, and it also seems that the Marshals had few options to do that.

That his wife was running after him saying he was off his meds doesn't mean the Marshals should have heeded her -- a husband-wife terrorist team is not so rare, and one had been in the news recently, so she could have appeared to be a distraction or worse. It does mean that he was doing or saying things that were a cause for concern.

All we know or think we know now indicates that this was a tragic shooting that, with the information the Marshals had at the time, was justified. But an inquiry needs to be made and as much of it as possible must be made public.


"Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender
[ Parent ]

What got him shot was disobeying the marshalls. (none / 0) (#204)
by t1ber on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 06:34:41 PM EST

It's not like there's big signs at the airport that say "Violaters and Suspects Will Be Sternly Asked to Disarm Their Bombs or They Will be Slapped About the Wrist and Neck With a Courtesy Towel".  If you fuck around, you can reasonably expect to be killed.

The marshalls didn't care if he was carrying a fannypack, a backpack, or a shopping cart.

What got him shot was the fact that he disobeyed marshalls orders to stop.  The air marshall does not care if he's got a bag or a sack, or if he's wearing a big frilly hat with a vulture on top.  Something got the Marshalls attention, this guy took off, they asked him to stop, and he failed to comply.  While it's unfortuante, what he was carrying and what he said have little to do with the case.  We live in an age where people put bombs in strange places, including their shoes.  I wouldn't be suprised to see a colon-bomber at some point that has a big C4 dildo in his ass because they asked him to strip naked.  The facts of the matter are:

1)  Air marshall asked him to stop
2)  He continued running

He was given the chance to stop, and he failed to comply.  Everything else is just speculation.  For instance, I have yet to see any news agency produce a record of his meds (something I think his widow will probably bring to court -- it may take that long to become public), and I have yet to see anyone get their hands on the terminal footage of him passing through the gates (but this is largely immaterial).

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

Dunno (none / 0) (#229)
by prolixity on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:08:09 PM EST

If some plain-clothes guy brandished a gun at me on an airplane, I'd run like hell too.
Bah!
[ Parent ]
I'm sure he properly identified himself (nt) (none / 0) (#233)
by t1ber on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:45:53 PM EST


And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

Sure? (none / 0) (#300)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:54:52 PM EST

One witness said that they were unaware that the air marshals were indeed that until they were being questioned.

Did they yell "police" which is recognizable to even many who speak no english (many european languages, the root word is unmistakable). I was under the impression he was from south america, after all.

Of course, no one can be sure yet just what happened. I for one would not be shocked to learn that they never "identified themselves until they were outside, right before/after he claimed to have a bomb" where there were of course, no witnesses besides themselves.

People fuck up. Hell, I do too. That's why I try not to do work where people live or die when I do fuck up. Why is it so unbelievable that these guys fucked up? Do you people all have an emotional investment in believing that they never fuck up? That's a bit irrational.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

Yes (1.50 / 2) (#230)
by thankyougustad on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:14:58 PM EST

1) Air marshall asked him to stop
2) He continued running
Clearly the punishment for noncompliance is a summary execution. He might as well have had a bunch of Daisies, he still would have been filled with hot lead.
While it's unfortuante, what he was carrying and what he said have little to do with the case.


No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
foolish (none / 0) (#234)
by t1ber on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:46:55 PM EST

That's clearly not the punishment and you clearly are either a troll or missed the point of opening fire outside the aircraft.

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

I clearly quoted you (none / 0) (#236)
by thankyougustad on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:41:52 PM EST



No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
correlation does not imply causation (none / 0) (#237)
by t1ber on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 10:49:44 PM EST


And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

what does that mean? (none / 0) (#250)
by thankyougustad on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 09:20:42 AM EST

you zeroing twat.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
it means (none / 0) (#253)
by t1ber on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 11:51:02 AM EST

Just because he was killed does not constitute a trial where the judgement would be execution.  

In your world, maybe.  If they had cuffed him, stuck the gun in his mouth, and blew his brains all over the flightline, yes that would be an execution.  Shooting someone running after giving them several chances at surrender is not an execution.

Simply:  Gunfight != Execution

You seem to be confusing "hindsight" with "facts at hand".

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

oh, well, fine (none / 0) (#255)
by thankyougustad on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 12:13:40 PM EST

I won't debate that. In fact I was confused because you picked up on the least important part of what I take issue with, namely your statement
While it's unfortuante, what he was carrying and what he said have little to do with the case.
and your further assertion that because
1) Air marshall asked him to stop
2) He continued running
Shooting him was the reasonable thing to do. If you try to say "he had a bomb" I will remind you that you said :
While it's unfortuante, what he was carrying and what he said have little to do with the case.
Also it is bad form to give a 0 for a statement that you merely disagree with.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
actually, you got a 0 because... (none / 0) (#256)
by t1ber on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 12:38:15 PM EST

I modded you as a 0 because of the word 'execution'.  If that was supposed to be sarcasm, it didn't come across the text.  It was patently false and distracted from the disucssion of the parent.

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

okay (none / 0) (#257)
by thankyougustad on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 12:41:32 PM EST

not that I care all that much about k5's rules, but 0 is for crap flooding and spam. The salient fact is that I didn't say simply execution, I said 'summary execution' which you implied was a just response to somone not obeying an officer's orders.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Haha. (none / 1) (#298)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:24:34 PM EST

If you fuck around, you can reasonably expect to be killed.

This itself isn't so bothersome.

What is, is that the definition of "fucking around" is so arbitrary, presumably being redefined on the spot by law enforcement officials who are trained to be paranoid, bitter toward the public by nature, and make split second decisions that can't be unmade.

Apparently, it's open season on the unmedicated mentally ill.

Apparently, becoming scared of going up on the plane, panicing and trying to run off the plane is a capital offense.

Apparently quick movements reaching for a purse or baggage carries the death sentence.

Christ, I played video games on the flight on my laptop. How many of them say all sorts of "bad words"? How many DVD movies? You reach to turn it off when the crazed air marshals over-react, and boom, you're dead.

He was given the chance to stop, and he failed to comply.

Sorry, but if people in plainclothes point guns at me, and tell me to stop, I'm doing ANYTHING but that. Have on a uniform, or hold up a badge, but my underlying assumption is that if you aren't doing one of these two things, you want me to stop so you have a better shot. There is no evidence they identified themselves. And more than a little to suggest they did not.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

Of course none (none / 0) (#197)
by Thierry Henry on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 05:46:09 PM EST

of the passengers heard him say bomb...he said it on the jetway, not in the plane.

[ Parent ]
Let me guess... (none / 0) (#296)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:14:04 PM EST

And of course only the air marshals heard it.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]
A clear violation of his Constitutional right (3.00 / 2) (#186)
by Benway on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 03:49:00 PM EST

To freak out and disobey law enforcement.

cdiss's crystal ball predicts: (none / 1) (#199)
by creativedissonance on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 05:49:52 PM EST

a section post in your future.  not enough momentum to hit FP.


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
hah! I was right (none / 0) (#242)
by creativedissonance on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 02:28:25 AM EST

tetsuwan's '2' notwithstanding.


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
These cute op-eds are all well and good (none / 1) (#241)
by the77x42 on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 01:40:34 AM EST

But I'm waiting for the time when someone is shot who is actually carrying a bomb. THAT would be news.

0 - Abstain.


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

-1, bullshit (none / 1) (#243)
by trhurler on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 02:28:36 AM EST

Nobody knows what really happened, because the stories all conflict. What is dead obvious is that this guy managed to convince some highly trained people that he had a bomb and was trying to set it off. They didn't shoot him for kicks. Whether those people SHOULD have believed him is another story, and we don't know - but "outrage" is a pointless reaction.

Also, French antiterrorist forces are well known for simply gunning down anyone who opposes them even at risk to innocents(see: ANY AND ALL French anti-hijacking activities EVER,) so please shut up about how great the French are.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Highly trained? (none / 0) (#293)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:06:46 PM EST

Training is shit. Even our military's training amounts to putting people under a machine press and stamping out identical little idiots.

These highly-trained officers were likely your classmates in highschool... the classmates that got C-'s in all the classes that would have required any thinking ability whatsoever.

We all like to think they're all Jack Bauers out there, but what we have out there are Barney Fife's inbred cousins.

Also, French antiterrorist forces are well known for simply gunning down anyone who opposes them even at risk to innocents

Wait, I thought fascist dubya-istas were anti-french? Are you allowed to say something that sounds like praise without authorization from Herr Rove?

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

Er... (none / 0) (#307)
by trhurler on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 12:41:18 AM EST

Training is shit. Even our military's training amounts to putting people under a machine press and stamping out identical little idiots.
Identical little idiots with combat effectiveness far surpassing that of any other nation on earth save possibly Israel. Training is limited in its effectiveness, but these guys apparently followed theirs to a tee. They WERE highly trained - whether you like the results of that or not being irrelevant to the point. They're better shots than most Secret Service guys, and supposedly their close quarters combat skills are pretty serious too, at least by law enforcement standards.
These highly-trained officers were likely your classmates in highschool... the classmates that got C-'s in all the classes that would have required any thinking ability whatsoever.
I doubt it. You have to have a four year degree to even be considered, and you have to achieve a certain proficiency with firearms and various hand to hand combat skills. Most of the people who got all those C's got them because they're lazy bums. It is doubtful they'd get through such a course of education and training. The truth is, the people who get in there are going to be the more athletic end of the spectrum of chronic overachievers - they got great grades even though they were basically not all that smart and so on.
We all like to think they're all Jack Bauers out there, but what we have out there are Barney Fife's inbred cousins.
They're neither of these things.
Wait, I thought fascist dubya-istas were anti-french? Are you allowed to say something that sounds like praise without authorization from Herr Rove?
I wasn't aware that accusing people of reckless disregard for innocent peoples' lives was praise.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Same old crap (none / 1) (#291)
by jubal3 on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 07:38:45 PM EST

It never ceases to amaze me how people who weren't present at an event, have only a smatttering of information about the event and no experience whatsoever dealing with police shootings will inevitably second-guess police use-of-force decisions. Decisions which were made in a split-second.

And people voicing the kinds of things you voiced in this article almost without exception want to call the cops in question killers and brutes and to hell with the actual facts. It's why you wrote this well before any investigation into the matter could reveal what actually happened.

There's no outrage because the facts are most assuredly not all in. What facts there are seem to support that a potentially VERY dangerous person, refusing to stop when ordered to was shot, ostensibly because it was believed he had a bomb. Are you one of these jackasses who thinks police should shoot to wound? (They dont because shooting at extremities almost guarantees missed rounds which are likely to kill bystanders or other cops).

I'd like to see this thoroughly invesitgated, as I am sure most people do. It will BE investigated and the shoot-dont-shoot decision will be questioned very carefully. If it was a mistake it will be called that. If it was malicious murder, as you claim, that will come out as well.

Your silly ranting wants to draw the worst possible conclusion well before any investigation has been done, based on a few press reports.

Grow up, you're not a teenager and "THE MAN" is not out to repress you.


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***

it never ceases to amaze me... (3.00 / 3) (#308)
by suntzu on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 01:57:59 AM EST

how willing people are to unquestioningly trust the decisions of the police, or even to give them the benefit of the doubt.

they're human. they fuck up sometimes. furthermore, you're paying them to do a job for you. it's perfectly justifiable to be skeptical of their performance.

[ Parent ]

Skepticism is one thing (1.50 / 2) (#314)
by Grognard on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 09:07:14 AM EST

using words like "execution", "totalitarian", etc. and implying that he was shot because he was non-white, or to serve as an example or even out of laziness is quite another.

I don't see anyone here who fits into the unquestioning category, but many, like me, will give them the benefit of the doubt.  They're surely as entitled to that benefit as someone like Tookie, no?

[ Parent ]

You're right (none / 0) (#318)
by Cro Magnon on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 09:31:01 AM EST

Cops are people, and yes, they do fuck up. But they're not inherently evil. I will give the cop the benefit of the doubt, but it certainly should be investigated, and if the cops did fuck up, they should be properly dealt with.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
police training (none / 0) (#347)
by kbudha on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 12:22:39 PM EST

I've been witness to and have had aquaintances in police academy training.

They're taught from day one to be "billy bad asses".

They're also taught procedures.
After a threat level high enough for fatal force(ie:poppin some caps in a perp's ass) is established they go off.

In the end the cops were scared shitless, this unfortunate person was in the middle of an episode with his mental illness, and this whole story will disappear into obscurity.

God I love this world.
-


Their "badass"-ness is poor. (none / 1) (#358)
by firefox on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 07:14:22 PM EST

The fear of he situations they're in affect them too much, and causes mistakes. True badasses are born not made. ;)

[ Parent ]
Miami shooting: No outrage? | 363 comments (338 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!