|
Please attempt to distinguish between extremists and non extremists to avoid starting the inevitable waste of time that is "can Islam be judged by its believers?" - KwarK |
On May 23 2013 06:49 Monsen wrote:
I'm sure the UK can handle this without losing their dignity. Stiff upper lip and all that. They weathered the Terror of the IRA, some extremist idiots will not make them lose their shit (unlike other nations I could mention).
Because beheading one guy is comparable to flying planes into skyscrapers. smh
The UK did lose its shit over the IRA multiple times smh
This thread isn't titled anti-American snark time is it
|
Extremely distressing but I'd like to push this more into the 'unhinged morons being violent thugs' rather than 'oh it's islam vs the west again'. Still, this sort of crime is the sort where I would advocate the death penalty. Zero evidential uncertainty, offenders brandishing bloodied weapons with bloodied hands on camera and pointing to the corpse, claiming responsibility. Unless they are actually insane, which wouldn't be outside the realms of possibility.
|
People are losing it over this, there is so much more violent crime happening in the US due to social issues. This is nothing but crazy idiots.
|
On May 23 2013 03:22 Warfie wrote:
What is going on in that video of the aftermath of the crime scene? He casually walks up to the camera and back to his accomplice (?) and people are checking out the body of the deceased? I just.. would imagine a different setting if someone were killed by machete and knife on an open street...
Diffusion of responsibility at its finest.
Was the beheading itself caught on video?
|
On May 23 2013 06:57 sc4k wrote:
Extremely distressing but I'd like to push this more into the 'unhinged morons being violent thugs' rather than 'oh it's islam vs the west again'. Still, this sort of crime is the sort where I would advocate the death penalty. Zero evidential uncertainty, offenders brandishing bloodied weapons with bloodied hands on camera and pointing to the corpse, claiming responsibility. Unless they are actually insane, which wouldn't be outside the realms of possibility.
I don't want to get too far into that but that solves nothing. I don't want blood on my hands for electing representatives who have decided that it's fine to murder our citizens.
|
I'm amazed the Cops didn't shoot to kill.
|
On May 23 2013 03:50 K_Dilkington wrote:
I'm extremely tired of Islamic fundamentalists, if they don't like it here in the west, why don't they move to a Islamic country?
Fucking billion dollar question... Agitates the fuck out of me.
|
United States42763 Posts
On May 23 2013 07:17 StarStruck wrote:
I'm amazed the Cops didn't shoot to kill.
Why would they? They're not judges, they're not empowered by society to pass sentence on anyone, an execution by a policeman is no more legal than one done by anyone else. Their job is to keep people safe and to get criminals safely under the control of the justice system, only the courts have the moral authority to punish criminals.
|
On May 23 2013 07:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 07:17 StarStruck wrote:
I'm amazed the Cops didn't shoot to kill. Why would they? They're not judges, they're not empowered by society to pass sentence on anyone, an execution by a policeman is no more legal than one done by anyone else. Their job is to keep people safe and to get criminals safely under the control of the justice system, only the courts have the moral authority to punish criminals.
If those guys made any sort of advance on them and didn't co-operate, which it sounds like they did. Pew pew. They still shot them and the rules over here state that they're allowed to fire if threatened. Not saying they're judges or the gatekeepers of death, but if other people are at risk. Who knows perhaps they would decide to attack another person then it's best to take out the threat as quickly as possible. Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that. I don't think I'd want these guys in my prison system either.
|
I've only just found out about this.
Struggling to make sense of this.
|
On May 23 2013 07:26 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 07:20 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 07:17 StarStruck wrote:
I'm amazed the Cops didn't shoot to kill. Why would they? They're not judges, they're not empowered by society to pass sentence on anyone, an execution by a policeman is no more legal than one done by anyone else. Their job is to keep people safe and to get criminals safely under the control of the justice system, only the courts have the moral authority to punish criminals. If those guys made any sort of advance on them and didn't co-operate, which it sounds like they did. Pew pew. They still shot them and the rules over here state that they're allowed to fire if threatened. Not saying they're judges or the gatekeepers of death, but if other people are at risk. Who knows perhaps they would decide to attack another person then it's best to take out the threat as quickly as possible. Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that. I don't think I'd want these guys in my prison system either.
So you are saying they should have found an excuse to essentially execute them on the spot? Is that really the point to this confusing piece of writing?
''Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that.''
What does this mean?
|
On May 23 2013 07:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 07:17 StarStruck wrote:
I'm amazed the Cops didn't shoot to kill. Why would they? They're not judges, they're not empowered by society to pass sentence on anyone, an execution by a policeman is no more legal than one done by anyone else. Their job is to keep people safe and to get criminals safely under the control of the justice system, only the courts have the moral authority to punish criminals.
Didn't the police shoot one of the 2 guys? The one that was approaching them with a gun. This I can understand, but there is no reason to kill the other one, that will just send him to "heaven" with the high amount of virgins.
I hate how the informations aren't exact in these kind of stories...
|
United States42763 Posts
On May 23 2013 07:26 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 07:20 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 07:17 StarStruck wrote:
I'm amazed the Cops didn't shoot to kill. Why would they? They're not judges, they're not empowered by society to pass sentence on anyone, an execution by a policeman is no more legal than one done by anyone else. Their job is to keep people safe and to get criminals safely under the control of the justice system, only the courts have the moral authority to punish criminals. If those guys made any sort of advance on them and didn't co-operate, which it sounds like they did. Pew pew. They still shot them and the rules over here state that they're allowed to fire if threatened. Not saying they're judges or the gatekeepers of death, but if other people are at risk. Who knows perhaps they would decide to attack another person then it's best to take out the threat as quickly as possible. Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that. I don't think I'd want these guys in my prison system either.
Sure, disable them by whatever means necessary if forced to protect people but a police killing a "criminal" is never justice, even when it's necessary. The ideal should always be that justice takes place, circumstances may force police to kill a criminal to protect themselves or others but that should not be confused with justice and should always be regretted.
|
They need to be interrogated and charged, the British government and people need to know if these aren't just two guys who went off on their own at the spur of the moment. There definitely could be more people involved who didn't actually participate in the murder. There's a good chance someone played a role in radicalizing these guys, maybe even specifically encouraged them to do this or something like this. They might have friends or acquaintances who are also a threat to go out and murder people.
Executing them on the spot makes it harder to keep this from happening again.
|
Let me guess. They were Muslims?
edit: confirmed.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 23 2013 07:32 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 07:26 StarStruck wrote:On May 23 2013 07:20 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 07:17 StarStruck wrote:
I'm amazed the Cops didn't shoot to kill. Why would they? They're not judges, they're not empowered by society to pass sentence on anyone, an execution by a policeman is no more legal than one done by anyone else. Their job is to keep people safe and to get criminals safely under the control of the justice system, only the courts have the moral authority to punish criminals. If those guys made any sort of advance on them and didn't co-operate, which it sounds like they did. Pew pew. They still shot them and the rules over here state that they're allowed to fire if threatened. Not saying they're judges or the gatekeepers of death, but if other people are at risk. Who knows perhaps they would decide to attack another person then it's best to take out the threat as quickly as possible. Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that. I don't think I'd want these guys in my prison system either. So you are saying they should have found an excuse to essentially execute them on the spot? Is that really the point to this confusing piece of writing? ''Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that.'' What does this mean?
What kind of intel you really think you'll get out of them? It's not so much of an excuse if your life or anyone else's life is in jeopardy for that matter. You take out the threat it's as simple as that any means necessary. I'd rather just go through their history to try and connect the dots because they sound like crazy mofos. I doubt you'd get shit of them. I'm not familiar with the U.K. police policies, so I guess it's pretty different from here.
I'm trying to recall the last policeman shooting down a criminal in Toronto. The last one I think was the Union Station fiasco which was 2004 I think? I think it was a hostage taking and a swat team member shot the guy right in the forehead.
|
Probably said a lot before:
My thoughts and sympathies go out to the family and co-workers of the victim.
May justice be served.
|
On May 23 2013 07:38 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On May 23 2013 07:26 StarStruck wrote:On May 23 2013 07:20 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 07:17 StarStruck wrote:
I'm amazed the Cops didn't shoot to kill. Why would they? They're not judges, they're not empowered by society to pass sentence on anyone, an execution by a policeman is no more legal than one done by anyone else. Their job is to keep people safe and to get criminals safely under the control of the justice system, only the courts have the moral authority to punish criminals. If those guys made any sort of advance on them and didn't co-operate, which it sounds like they did. Pew pew. They still shot them and the rules over here state that they're allowed to fire if threatened. Not saying they're judges or the gatekeepers of death, but if other people are at risk. Who knows perhaps they would decide to attack another person then it's best to take out the threat as quickly as possible. Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that. I don't think I'd want these guys in my prison system either. So you are saying they should have found an excuse to essentially execute them on the spot? Is that really the point to this confusing piece of writing? ''Sure, you want to hear their side of the story in court but I don't see any good coming out of that.'' What does this mean? What kind of intel you really think you'll get out of them? It's not so much of an excuse if your life or anyone else's life is in jeopardy for that matter. You take out the threat it's as simple as that any means necessary. I'd rather just go through their history to try and connect the dots because they sound like crazy mofos. I doubt you'd get shit of them. I'm not familiar with the U.K. police policies, so I guess it's pretty different from here.
In nonamericaland policemen are not paid to play Dredd. Which is a good thing. High respect for these bobbies and every other policeman that does his work properly.
|
random crazy dude is all I could see, it's sad and all that, but I very much doubt that it means anything relevant in the grand scheme of things, he seemed drugged too.
|
On May 23 2013 07:38 Thor.Rush wrote:
Let me guess. They were Muslims?
edit: confirmed.
They could've just as well been Mexican drug lords, Russian mobsters, African warlords or some other type of deranged nut job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
