|
Human rights are a major part of all Western constitutions. As such they are cherished and protected... at least in most cases. For the occasion that a country doesn't grant its citizens those basic rights, there are international institutions that a meant to provide justice. In Europe the European Court of Human Rights reviews the cases of Europeans that feel robbed of their human rights by their country.
I have always thought that it's great to have such an institution and I still believe it is neccessary since it helps people that cannot turn to anybody else.
However, my belief in the complete righteousness of the ECHR has been shattered by one of their yesterday's decisions.
Really!?
Basically, there was this guy in Bulgaria, who made a living (quite a good one) from stealing cars (many, many cars!) and selling them. He managed to hide very well for three full years despite being pretty high on the wanted list. He managed to avoid/escape from 3 spec-ops operations that aimed to catch him during this period.
Well, but four is a magical number. The fourth operation against him was kept as secret as possible to prevent corrupt cops from selling out information. However, when the spec-ops approach him, he sees that something's fishy. So he does what every self-respecting criminal would do and goes GTA style. He and his buddies get into two of their cars and try to escape: Full-speed, ignoring red lights through the some of the main streets of the Bulgarian capital. Oh, and of course they had their AK-47s (and a few other less impressive weapons) with military ammounts of ammo, which they put to full use against the cops.
After about 30 minutes our hero sees that there is little hope of fleeing with his car after one of the tires is shot by the police. He abandons his AK-47 in the car, but takes both his pistols as he tries to run away. Mr. Awesome (after emptying one of his guns at the police) actually manages to run for quite some time and finally hides in a building. The police is about to give up the chase, but a witness tells them where the guy is hiding.
A few minutes later Mr. "Badass Rampage in the big city" is carried out of the building with his hands cuffed behind his back and a hole gaping from his head.
Now the European Court of Human Rights ruled that he was denied his right to life. Are you serious!? Mr. "I'm the fucking king of the world" drove like crazy through a densely populated area and emptied several magazines of AK-47 as well as a clip of handgun endangering thousands of people.
One of the complaints of the ECHR is that the police did not try to negotiate with him before shooting him. WTF??? Negotiating? He had 3 years time to give up if he wanted to. He has escaped 3 times in past operations aimed at him. And during his last chase he had 90 minutes to decide that he wants to give up! Well, he didn't. Instead he went GTA / Rambo style.
Now his parents are supposed to recieve €30.000 as compensation for their loss. On various forums, people have expressed their opinion that they would gladly pay their taxes for such compensations if this is what it takes to get the scum off the streets.
|
the Dagon Knight4012 Posts
To be honest I have bigger concerns about the whole human rights charter. Nothing to do with specific cases or anything, but it seems a bit weird for any group of people to dictate the what are considered the fundamental rights of anyone anywhere... especially when organisations like Amnesty etc.
I dunno, echoes of colonialism or something.
I understand it's a good and wholesome thing, it just seems weird.
|
Following his entry into the residential building, the whole area had been sealed off by the police who had had at the time complete control of the situation. While it had not appeared that Gancho could have successfully escaped, the police had not even attempted to minimise, as much as possible, recourse to lethal force.
There is no right to kill someone who is not CURRENTLY a threat to someone else's life. Killing people is only permitted to protect the lives of other people. Nothing else.
Well maybe this doesn't hold in some countries, but it certainly does in the EU.
|
Hmm that's pretty ridiculous yeah, the guy was engaged in a shootout with police, what did he or anyone else expect the end result to be? Case should have been instantly laughed out of any sensible court.
Reminds me of this
+ Show Spoiler +
|
When a person decides to break the law, in my opinion he's already given up all of his rights.
|
I doubt your presentation of the facts coincides with the truth... the ehcr have no motive to rule this way have they? so unless theyre completely incompetent they know something you don't.
|
This was incredibly stupid. The boy could have been harmed if the guy had noticed what was going on. And honestly, if you would risk the life of an innocent child over some "3 demands", then I am actually out of words. Not out of nice words though.
On July 09 2010 22:27 nayumi wrote:
When a person decides to break the law, in my opinion he's already given up all of his rights.
Do you really want this rule to be applied for you?
|
On July 09 2010 22:38 spinesheath wrote:This was incredibly stupid. The boy could have been harmed if the guy had noticed what was going on. And honestly, if you would risk the life of an innocent child over some "3 demands", then I am actually out of words. Not out of nice words though.
Regardless of moral values, it is a very economical approach. What's the value of one human life? Calculating in the risks? As seen an individual defending themselves? As seen by a country defending itself?
On topic: Without further evidence in the case, I'd say it is a preposterous conclusion by the human rights court. I have no idea if the guy was still armed when he got shot and if he has been addressed on surrendering or not. Edit: I read, it said there were no negotiations. It includes stuff on psychic health which seems a questionable argument to me given the circumstances.. why even introduce that topic.
|
On July 09 2010 22:38 spinesheath wrote:This was incredibly stupid. The boy could have been harmed if the guy had noticed what was going on. And honestly, if you would risk the life of an innocent child over some "3 demands", then I am actually out of words. Not out of nice words though. Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 22:27 nayumi wrote:
When a person decides to break the law, in my opinion he's already given up all of his rights. Do you really want this rule to be applied for you?
Sure why not?
If i decided to piss on the whole society by massacring a family, would i even care about the consequences any more? I don't think so.
When someone decides to put another person's life at risk , I see no reason why his life should be protected either.
|
On July 09 2010 23:01 nayumi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 22:38 spinesheath wrote:This was incredibly stupid. The boy could have been harmed if the guy had noticed what was going on. And honestly, if you would risk the life of an innocent child over some "3 demands", then I am actually out of words. Not out of nice words though. On July 09 2010 22:27 nayumi wrote:
When a person decides to break the law, in my opinion he's already given up all of his rights. Do you really want this rule to be applied for you? Sure why not? If i decided to piss on the whole society by massacring a family, would i even care about the consequences any more? I don't think so. When someone decides to put another person's life at risk , I see no reason why his life should be protected either.
Pack your bags, you're going to guantanamo bay for pirating movies online. If you're alive after five years of torture (which you should be considering how much worse the chinese kind is) we'll let you out.
You should rephrase what kind of laws need to be broken to give up all of one's rights.
|
Hard to make this call. No system is perfect, you can only find one that works for MOST of the situations. Personally, I don't think his family deserves any compensation.
However, you can't let the cops change the rules for certain situations even if it seems right. It's a very slippery slope that they shouldn't be allowed to do or else thing's can get more ugly.
It's really tough being a cop.
Take G20 in toronto. Those fuckfaces were destroying my city. From the vids, there were like 16-30 year olds throwing bricks and breakiong windows. These people are bitching about capitalism but imo, most of these morons havent even gotten a job yet to pay their taxes. If it was me, I'd shoot them all in the face with real bullets to help increase the average IQ. You can tell, they were instigated stuff with the cops, but the cops had to obey the law or else you have ppl screaming that they aren't following the law and are ignoring human rights (which is exactly what happened). Too many stupid ppl in this world.
I'm thinking of buying a province and only let ppl who have an IQ higher than 130 to live there.
|
On July 09 2010 23:15 Hidden_MotiveS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 23:01 nayumi wrote:On July 09 2010 22:38 spinesheath wrote:This was incredibly stupid. The boy could have been harmed if the guy had noticed what was going on. And honestly, if you would risk the life of an innocent child over some "3 demands", then I am actually out of words. Not out of nice words though. On July 09 2010 22:27 nayumi wrote:
When a person decides to break the law, in my opinion he's already given up all of his rights. Do you really want this rule to be applied for you? Sure why not? If i decided to piss on the whole society by massacring a family, would i even care about the consequences any more? I don't think so. When someone decides to put another person's life at risk , I see no reason why his life should be protected either. Pack your bags, you're going to guantanamo bay for pirating movies online. If you're alive after five years of torture (which you should be considering how much worse the chinese kind is) we'll let you out. You should rephrase what kind of laws need to be broken to give up all of one's rights.
He did say that human rights should not apply to people "who put other people's lives at risk" >_>... He specified completely what situations would consitute a criminal giving up his rights to life. Now you may disagree that breaking the law equates to loss of rights (and maybe rightfully so), but what you said there, with regards to pirating movies leading to loss of rights, is irrelevant, because that is not even what he was suggesting.
I personally agree with the statement, but would like to add that you have to be sure that you are fully aware of the criminal's situation (i.e their motives for their crimes are maybe understandable, such as theyre forced by gang bosses, or that they have a family to take care of, etc) when an institution, e.g law enforcers such as the police, decides to ignore somebody's right to life.
I believe, however, neither I nor the person your comment was addressed to advocates putting somebody in Guantanamo Bay and depriving them of their rights just over pirated movies though. Please keep your hyperbole down to a meaningful level, or everything sensible you may have meant are void.
|
On July 09 2010 23:15 Hidden_MotiveS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 23:01 nayumi wrote:On July 09 2010 22:38 spinesheath wrote:This was incredibly stupid. The boy could have been harmed if the guy had noticed what was going on. And honestly, if you would risk the life of an innocent child over some "3 demands", then I am actually out of words. Not out of nice words though. On July 09 2010 22:27 nayumi wrote:
When a person decides to break the law, in my opinion he's already given up all of his rights. Do you really want this rule to be applied for you? Sure why not? If i decided to piss on the whole society by massacring a family, would i even care about the consequences any more? I don't think so. When someone decides to put another person's life at risk , I see no reason why his life should be protected either. Pack your bags, you're going to guantanamo bay for pirating movies online. If you're alive after five years of torture (which you should be considering how much worse the chinese kind is) we'll let you out. You should rephrase what kind of laws need to be broken to give up all of one's rights.
oh i thought it was obvious what type of crime we were referring to here ... my bad then :/
|
On July 09 2010 22:51 Badjas wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 09 2010 22:38 spinesheath wrote:This was incredibly stupid. The boy could have been harmed if the guy had noticed what was going on. And honestly, if you would risk the life of an innocent child over some "3 demands", then I am actually out of words. Not out of nice words though. Regardless of moral values, it is a very economical approach. What's the value of one human life? Calculating in the risks? As seen an individual defending themselves? As seen by a country defending itself? On topic: Without further evidence in the case, I'd say it is a preposterous conclusion by the human rights court. I have no idea if the guy was still armed when he got shot and if he has been addressed on surrendering or not. Edit: I read, it said there were no negotiations. It includes stuff on psychic health which seems a questionable argument to me given the circumstances.. why even introduce that topic.
He was armed and he did use his pistol in the building. However, when the crime scene was investigated, they found that he had only 3 bullets left (which however nobody could have known).
On July 09 2010 22:33 nttea wrote:
I doubt your presentation of the facts coincides with the truth... the ehcr have no motive to rule this way have they? so unless theyre completely incompetent they know something you don't.
Here is the funny part
They do not know for sure if he was actually killed or if he shot himself!
As stated here and here (e.g. last paragraph)
Either way they said that the police is at fault either because they shot him althought it was not "absolutely necessary" or because they failed "to take all necessary means to avoid autoagression".
On July 09 2010 22:21 spinesheath wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Following his entry into the residential building, the whole area had been sealed off by the police who had had at the time complete control of the situation. While it had not appeared that Gancho could have successfully escaped, the police had not even attempted to minimise, as much as possible, recourse to lethal force. There is no right to kill someone who is not CURRENTLY a threat to someone else's life. Killing people is only permitted to protect the lives of other people. Nothing else. Well maybe this doesn't hold in some countries, but it certainly does in the EU.
First of all, let's not forget that this guy was not much into talking. He had already escaped three times from the police.
Also, by the time he died, he had been on the run for 1 hour and 30 minutes, in which he had more that enough opportunities to give up. How about this: When you get out of your car after its tires are shot by the police, you could either surrender laying down on the ground or you can take both your pistols, continue shooting at the police and continue fleeing. Luckily he left the grenades in the car (yes he was carrying a bunch of grenades around)
And it is also questionable how the court decided that he was not an imminent threat. He was armed and he was in a residential building in the middle of a residential area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's summarize:
We have a reckless, trigger-happy asshole that dies.
He is either shot by the police or he kills himself.
The court still determines that it is somebody else's fault that he has a gaping hole in his head.
And people wonder why the police is often indecisive, slow and ineffective in critical situations...
|
On July 09 2010 22:09 SirJolt wrote:
To be honest I have bigger concerns about the whole human rights charter. Nothing to do with specific cases or anything, but it seems a bit weird for any group of people to dictate the what are considered the fundamental rights of anyone anywhere... especially when organisations like Amnesty etc.
I dunno, echoes of colonialism or something.
I understand it's a good and wholesome thing, it just seems weird.
if westerners really cared about human rights wouldn't they be boycotting more chinese slave labour goods?
they don't really care about them that much so long as they get their goods cheap
|
I don't understand why people bitch and moan about a few bad people who get lucky and are protected by civil or human rights authorities when far more good people are being denied these same rights on account of coercion, corruption, extortion. etc.
Your priorities are way out of order if human rights groups are high on your shit list.
|
152 4973
15 359
One is the replies/views for this thread.
One is the replies/views for "Why are asian girls so hot" thread.
|
Well, given their conclusion he probably was assassinated by the police. Not that I would complain about it. I am sure there are better things for human rights groups to focus on...
lol, I do agree with mmp though
|
On July 09 2010 22:51 Badjas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 22:38 spinesheath wrote:This was incredibly stupid. The boy could have been harmed if the guy had noticed what was going on. And honestly, if you would risk the life of an innocent child over some "3 demands", then I am actually out of words. Not out of nice words though. Regardless of moral values, it is a very economical approach. What's the value of one human life? Calculating in the risks? As seen an individual defending themselves? As seen by a country defending itself?
A country defending itself from a single kidnapper? You've got to be kidding.
Value of a human life? Infinitely more than anything that guy could have asked for unless it involved harm to other people.
On July 09 2010 23:01 nayumi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 22:38 spinesheath wrote:This was incredibly stupid. The boy could have been harmed if the guy had noticed what was going on. And honestly, if you would risk the life of an innocent child over some "3 demands", then I am actually out of words. Not out of nice words though. On July 09 2010 22:27 nayumi wrote:
When a person decides to break the law, in my opinion he's already given up all of his rights. Do you really want this rule to be applied for you? Sure why not? If i decided to piss on the whole society by massacring a family, would i even care about the consequences any more? I don't think so. When someone decides to put another person's life at risk , I see no reason why his life should be protected either.
Are you sure that you never broke the law before? By your initial statement I would assume that you forfeit all your human rights. It's unlikely that you happen to the one person on earth who has never broken any law (knowingly or unknowingly).
Have you ever driven a car? Whenever you are driving you are by default putting other's lives at risk. If you are not aware of that you should stay out of cars. So, should everyone with a driver's license lose his rights?
|
Extremes are never a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4033/1278321528876.jpg)
