Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Does using a Tazer,paralyse a person? If it does parhaps thats the way to go forward, that way no one gets killed!

In many ways I agree with Joe Mc. The Brazilian was another victim of terrorist bombers - assuming the visa stories are correct. He bears some responsibility himself if he was there illegally of course. No less tragic for his family of course. There are tens of thousands, if not millions, of illegal aliens in every industrialized nation - their presence may not be OFFICIALLY sanctioned, but that doesn't change the fact that many legal citizens, frequently the wealthiest ones, profit from their presence. Their presence is tacitly condoned. Not sure why he would have ran otherwise... other than the reasons I posted the other day - if you yourself have done nothing wrong, it's not easy to surmise how you would react when people with guns are yelling at you. It's easy to understand how you might panic or assume that there's someone else nearby that the cops might be yelling at. No matter the status of his visa, the whole thing is tragic and I hope we (as in we people who don't actively bomb other people) can get this situation under control in the very near future.

If he had been a terrorist with a bomb the Officers in question would be being lauded in the press as National Hero's for putting their lives on the line, preventing more loss of life and we wouldnt be having this discussion.

The same day this happened Armed Response detained a man outside Downing Street who had also been behaving suspiciously. He complied with their instructions and they didnt shoot him. After they were satisfied he wasnt a threat they allowed him to go.

Pretty much what I was going to say, but without the annoying bold/italic text.

I can see what iwannadie was getting at but it's not really a comparable scenario IMO.

I see it as a horrible accident that wouldn't have occured without the recent terrorist threats. The officers were doing there jobs, following orders.

barmy_carmy wrote:Hi 9000white, How? when legs and arms are restrained, how can they set off a bomb?

for my part they can restrain them then inject them with curare freeze them for 6 months then shoot them.

Kal wrote:You are trying to confuse the issue by using a completely different example.

Heres the deal. A man in a sensative area behaved like a terrorist. The Police took affirmative action to prevent widescale loss of life similar to what we saw in London a couple of weeks ago.

The tradgedy is that the man was innocent of everything except being in the Country illegally.

If he had been a terrorist with a bomb the Officers in question would be being lauded in the press as National Hero's for putting their lives on the line, preventing more loss of life and we wouldnt be having this discussion.

The same day this happened Armed Response detained a man outside Downing Street who had also been behaving suspiciously. He complied with their instructions and they didnt shoot him. After they were satisfied he wasnt a threat they allowed him to go.

I still havent seen an answer on how many accidental shootings there are by Police Officers in the US.[/i][/b]

explain how he behaved like a terrorist? theres no evidence he did anything wrong. the whole 'he had a big jacket on' is total garbage and now coming out he didnt Even have a jacket on so there goes that theory. the guy was there and saw a mob of people running at him with guns most likely screaming about a bomb. so he ran rightfully so thats all there is to it. poor guy probally thought he was being mugged.

as usual your set in your way of thinking no thing in this thread will let you see the facts and change your mind so im done with it.

I found this statistic for the US-
Nothing about cops though.

Paretheses are percentages.

Table 1 Victims of unintentional firearm homicides identified by SHRs, 1997
No (%)
SHR victims 168 (100)
SHR victims with linking death certificate record 140 (83)
Underlying cause of death on linking death certificate record:
Assault by firearm (E965.0–E965.4) 105 (75)
Accident by firearm (E922.0–E922.9, excluding E922.4) 32 (23)
Undetermined (E985.0–E985.4) 3 (2)
Total linked SHR/death certificate records 140 (100)

Table 2 Characteristics of victims and perpetrators of unintentional firearm
homicides, SHRs, 1997
No (%) victims
(n=168)
No (%) perpetrators*
(n=168)
Age (years)
0–9 17 (10) 6 (4)
10–19 89 (53) 91 (54)
20–29 28 (17) 33 (20)
30–39 16 (10) 17 (10)
40–49 11 (7) 11 (7)
50–59 1 (1) 7 (4)
60–69 3 (2) 0
70–79 3 (2) 0
80+ 0 0
Unknown 0 3 (2)
Gender
Male 126 (75) 156 (93)
Female 42 (25) 11 (7)
Unknown 0 1 (1)
Race
White 116 (69) 113 (67)
Black 44 (26) 47 (28) The smiley face is a glitch! 28%
American Indian/Native Alaskan 3 (2) 2 (1)
Asian/Pacific Islander 5 (3) 4 (2)
Unknown 0 2 (1)
*In the six cases involving multiple perpetrators, the characteristics of the first listed perpetrator only are
included.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/pdf/b ... p-2002.pdf

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

Also I found on another website-

"And don't think that just because the police are trained in the use of firearms that they are less likely to kill an innocent person. A University of Chicago Study revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. Do the math. That's a per capita rate of almost 4000 times higher than the population in general. OK, that is a little misleading. Let's just include the 80,000,000 gun owning citizens. Now we are down to only 1200 times higher than the gunowning population in general.

That still sounds high. So let's look at it in a different light. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. That is as low as I can get that number."

"In fact, because police often live on the edge, they naturally tend to shoot first and ask questions later. Although they are trained to repress this instinct, it does not always work, as evidenced by the number of innocent people killed by police. Also, since they are generally better marksmen, they tend to kill, rather than wound their target. The Kleck study shows that police shoot and kill around 600 criminals each year. Yet the University of Chicago study shows that police killed 330 innocent individuals in 1993. That means that for every two criminals killed by police, one innocent citizen is killed by police. I think that I would much rather trust an armed populace."

http://www.gurusinc.com/aa/guns/guns1.html

eugeart

dude the pic of your bike is cool and all but does it Need to be that huge? im sure there is some size restriction to signature pics? if not there needs to be, come on.

sorry I'll fix it!

Howzat!?

What can you say. A mistake is a mistake is a mistake. If I had been the cop holding the gun and I thought he was a terrorist with a bomb in his pac, He'd have got all six in the head. Bet on it. He'd have probably died in another fifty years anyway.

If a copper is trained in the use of firearms, armed and instructed to 'shoot to kill' then the likelyhood is that sooner or later some poor innocent bastrd is going to get it in the head, especially in conditions of heightened alert. Depending on how you assess these things, the copper may or may not be regarded as responsible for the death of an innocent victim. (Though the pressure on an embarrassed police force elite to scapegoat the performing officer must be strong. This is the way the armed forces often act)

What bothers me is the question of whether the issuing of a 'shoot to kill' order is justifiable. There has to be a balance of risk and that risk may need to be weighted. I don't know what the risks are, so I can't answer that, though from the US figures someone gave, the chances of innocent deaths from a an armed police with 'shoot to kill' orders seem likely to be to be high. Personally, I think that one innocent victim of the police is too many.

What is not at all clear from the press reports are the exact circumstances of the shooting on the Stockwell tube. It seems the Met clearly lied in some of its early press statements, though whether all its early pronouncements were lies or just the confusion of the moment is unclear. They said, at first, this Brizilian guy occupied the same property as known terrorists. Now, it appears he just lived in the same block. They are also now saying that his visa was perfectly in order an not forged at all. I doubt whether we will ever hear the full truth of this.

What upsets me is the Met's refusal to offer a full apology and their reliance on phrases like 'deeply regret' followed by some heavy justifications.

As someone else said, the Brazillian guy was a victim of terrorism. That, in one sense, is perfecly true. However, at the risk of being a lone and very unpopular voice here, terrorism perpetrated by sucicide bombers in European and American cities is miniscule in comparison to the state terrorism perpetrated by the west on innocent populations abroad. If you really want to stop this stuff happening, you need to tackle the causes. It is within the power of western governments to do a great deal to prevent terrorism by putting their own houses in order.