On July 10 2010 00:43 mmp wrote: 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.
I wouldn't say that he got lucky... he is dead.
The issues you address are predominantly neither in the country I live in nor anywhere in the EU. The ECHR cannot do anything about human rights' issues in Africa or Asia, but they can very well, stop wasting time and money on stupid stuff.
Another thing I am concerned about is the fact that the harsh police actions are being prosecuted on almost every occasion. This causes the police to become unable to act appropriately in critical situations, which poses a danger to all people in the country. It's not like this is the first time harsh police actions have been deemed wrong, although they face a possible threat and the situation is pretty difficult. For example, there was a border patrol officer, whose patrol had stopped a trafficking boat, upon entering that boat one of the sailors pulled a gun, was shot by the officer and died. This officer was put in jail afterwards... I oppose police brutality and arbitrariness, but I also believe that at least in critical moments the police should be able to do what seems right and not have to fear consequences for actions are not driven by brutality and arbitrariness.
Getting killed in a shootout doesn't mean you're robbed of your right to live, what the hell is wrong with those people... I'd say I'm on the left regarding those things but this is pretty ridiculous =P
There is a good reason to be harsh with the police. Otherwise they might start pulling the trigger too quickly. What "seems right" might just be horribly wrong. Also, policemen are trained better than the average criminal so they don't have to shoot everyone who might harm them.
Usually a policeman isn't even punished too hard. I suppose that every officer is aware that he might be ranked down if he shoots someone and misjudged the situation, and if he worries about that too much then maybe he isn't suitable as a cop.
The case you describe with an officer being put in jail sounds extreme. Either it was a misjudgement by the court - which happens for all kinds of people - or there is more to it than you tell us.
On July 10 2010 02:11 Djzapz wrote: Getting killed in a shootout doesn't mean you're robbed of your right to live, what the hell is wrong with those people... I'd say I'm on the left regarding those things but this is pretty ridiculous =P
Check the link, the situation was supposedly under control, which imo implies that there wasn't any gunfire for a significant amount of time. The shootout was already over.
Hey OP, I know you managed to write a fairly elaborate synopsis of what you claimed happened but trying to turn this into a movie action sequence isn't exactly a full story.
Either you forgot to mention or don't know if anyone was killed during this whole event. You've made plenty of reference to the guy being extremely reckless and dangerous but given the situation you depicted you would have thought that someone actually managed to get injured.
EDIT: Read the link, not the OP's post. The police sealed off the building and had complete control of the situation. It's definetely a case of excessive force.
From the link: Right to life: use of force (Article 2)
The Court noted that Gancho had been fatally wounded during an attempted police arrest. 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. As it had not been established that there had been any danger or urgency justifying the use of firearms for Gancho’s arrest, the Court found that the police could have attempted to negotiate with him to surrender, or at least to warn him of their intentions to fire. Instead, apparently without considering any other alternative action, the special squad officers had rushed into the building firing their guns. The Court concluded that the arrest operation had not been adequately planned and that, in those circumstances, the force used had not been absolutely necessary, as required by the Convention. There had therefore been a violation of Article 2.
Right to life: investigation (Article 2)
The Court observed that the Bulgarian authorities had undertaken a number of investigative acts. However, it was struck by the fact that they had failed to collect a crucial piece of evidence, namely statements from the special squad officers who had been directly involved in Gancho’s arrest. Those officers appeared to have been unconditionally exempted from their duty to testify in criminal proceedings, something for which there could be no excuse given the authorities’ obligations under Article 2 to conduct effective investigations where suspicious deaths were at stake.
Further, the reliability of the psychiatric report carried out after Gancho’s death was seriously questioned by the Court. In addition, unlike the prosecutor’s affirmation, the Court found the evidence gathered to have been inconclusive, leaving open both possible explanations for Gancho’s death: suicide as well as manslaughter. The discontinuation of the investigation, without identifying first the officers who had taken part in his arrest, indicated a deplorable lack of accountability of the police before the law. Finally, the investigation was found to have been incomplete, a number of important investigative acts never having taken place. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the investigation into Gancho’s death lacked the necessary thoroughness and objectivity, and was not effective, in violation of Article 2.
the twisted logic of this reminds of cases when burglars break into a house and hurt themselves by cutting themselves on the glass they broke...and then sueing the homeowner and winning....i kid you not this has happened many times and i don't understand it at all
On July 10 2010 03:54 Offhand wrote: Hey OP, I know you managed to write a fairly elaborate synopsis of what you claimed happened but trying to turn this into a movie action sequence isn't exactly a full story.
Either you forgot to mention or don't know if anyone was killed during this whole event. You've made plenty of reference to the guy being extremely reckless and dangerous but given the situation you depicted you would have thought that someone actually managed to get injured.
EDIT: Read the link, not the OP's post. The police sealed off the building and had complete control of the situation. It's definetely a case of excessive force.
From the link: Right to life: use of force (Article 2)
The Court noted that Gancho had been fatally wounded during an attempted police arrest. 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. As it had not been established that there had been any danger or urgency justifying the use of firearms for Gancho’s arrest, the Court found that the police could have attempted to negotiate with him to surrender, or at least to warn him of their intentions to fire. Instead, apparently without considering any other alternative action, the special squad officers had rushed into the building firing their guns. The Court concluded that the arrest operation had not been adequately planned and that, in those circumstances, the force used had not been absolutely necessary, as required by the Convention. There had therefore been a violation of Article 2.
Right to life: investigation (Article 2)
The Court observed that the Bulgarian authorities had undertaken a number of investigative acts. However, it was struck by the fact that they had failed to collect a crucial piece of evidence, namely statements from the special squad officers who had been directly involved in Gancho’s arrest. Those officers appeared to have been unconditionally exempted from their duty to testify in criminal proceedings, something for which there could be no excuse given the authorities’ obligations under Article 2 to conduct effective investigations where suspicious deaths were at stake.
Further, the reliability of the psychiatric report carried out after Gancho’s death was seriously questioned by the Court. In addition, unlike the prosecutor’s affirmation, the Court found the evidence gathered to have been inconclusive, leaving open both possible explanations for Gancho’s death: suicide as well as manslaughter. The discontinuation of the investigation, without identifying first the officers who had taken part in his arrest, indicated a deplorable lack of accountability of the police before the law. Finally, the investigation was found to have been incomplete, a number of important investigative acts never having taken place. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the investigation into Gancho’s death lacked the necessary thoroughness and objectivity, and was not effective, in violation of Article 2.
I never said that anybody was injured. In fact as far as I know only two people were injured: The guy who died and one of his buddies, who was in the same car as Rambo and got shot by him, because our badass hero got paranoid and believed that his buddy was a traitor. The point is that this guy was reckless as hell and incalculable. On top of that he was armed and might have had grenades on him (turns out he left them all in the car, but how would you know). Wouldn't have been too much trouble for him to throw them out of the window.
Oh, and just a little hint. Before suggesting a source to support your claim, maybe you should read the source completely first. The official investigations had shown that he commited suicide. Basically the ECHR ruled that the investigations were incomplete and ignored them. Even in their final reasoning they state that there are two "possible explanations for Gancho’s death: suicide as well as manslaughter". One of the judges actually explains that if it was suicide, then the police failed to "to take all necessary means to avoid autoagression". The whole ruling is based on inclusive information.
when i saw this thread last night (i was banned... i couldn't post) and noticed all of the europeans' comments i was reminded of why everybody wants to live in america.
if you look back on the previous posts and compare countries, i think you'll notice that every american in this thread is singing pretty much the same song.
reading the op say "i'm all for human rights" and in essentially the same breath turn around and say "... BUT FUCK THIS GUY" is kind of like that old joke:
"would you have sex with a man for $100?" "lol no" "ok ... but would you have sex with a man for $1,000,000?" ... "meh... alright" + Show Spoiler +
"...>_>... well, now that we know what kind of person you are, its just a matter of negotiating price then, isn't it?"
PS: the vietnamese guy who said "don't treat him like a human being because if i did that i wouldn't care about humanity" is a moron.
Check the link, the situation was supposedly under control, which imo implies that there wasn't any gunfire for a significant amount of time. The shootout was already over.
Oh... -_-
Shouldn't try to pick up a story from the cover, it doesn't work well for me.
On July 10 2010 06:09 ggrrg wrote: Oh, and just a little hint. Before suggesting a source to support your claim, maybe you should read the source completely first. The official investigations had shown that he commited suicide. Basically the ECHR ruled that the investigations were incomplete and ignored them. Even in their final reasoning they state that there are two "possible explanations for Gancho’s death: suicide as well as manslaughter". One of the judges actually explains that if it was suicide, then the police failed to "to take all necessary means to avoid autoagression". The whole ruling is based on inclusive information.
If he committed suicide then too bad for the family, they shouldn't be paid. On the other hand if he was executed well, that's a whole other kettle of fish.
EPT
