'More innocent people will be shot dead' says police chief !

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco wrote:

No, the reason it 'hurts' is that you're just making cheap shots. If you
want to talk about police actions, and the people (particularly
minorities) who suffer at the hands of police, you'll find that France
and the UK have their own share of problems.


Indeed:-

Oct. 17, 1961

Unarmed Algerian Muslims demonstrating in central Paris against a
discriminatory curfew were beaten, shot, garotted and even drowned by
police and special troops. Thousands were rounded up and taken to
detention centers around the city and the prefecture of police, where
there were more beatings and killings.

How many died? No one seems to know for sure, even now. Probably around 200.

"Charles Hawtrey" wrote in message
. ..
In article 1h07xoc.1x0rljdis4ol7N%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.com,
says...

Earl is an intelligent person, which makes it all the more ironic that
he tends to see the world in such black-and-white terms (i.e., the US is
always bad; France almost never errs but even when it does so is better
than the US and UK; etc). You just have to make allowances when he gets
on his high horse.

Wrong. He is talking his usual ********. If he took his retirement like the
rest of us and pottered in his garden instead of hogging bandwidth on this
newsgroup with his trite and inconsequential drivel about the weather in
Paris etc, he might be a bit more entertaining when he did burst into print.

Mike O'Sullivan wrote:

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco wrote:

No, the reason it 'hurts' is that you're just making cheap shots. If you
want to talk about police actions, and the people (particularly
minorities) who suffer at the hands of police, you'll find that France
and the UK have their own share of problems.


Indeed:-

Oct. 17, 1961

Unarmed Algerian Muslims demonstrating in central Paris against a
discriminatory curfew were beaten, shot, garotted and even drowned by
police and special troops. Thousands were rounded up and taken to
detention centers around the city and the prefecture of police, where
there were more beatings and killings.

How many died? No one seems to know for sure, even now. Probably around 200.

Yes, but to be fair (and Earl is being distinctly _un_fair) that's old
news. There are more recent, if less, spectacular cases. Both the UK and
French forces have their problems, and I think you're on shaky ground
when you start asking which force is closer to the US style of policing.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco wrote:
Mike O'Sullivan wrote:


chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco wrote:

No, the reason it 'hurts' is that you're just making cheap shots. If you
want to talk about police actions, and the people (particularly
minorities) who suffer at the hands of police, you'll find that France
and the UK have their own share of problems.


Indeed:-

Oct. 17, 1961

Unarmed Algerian Muslims demonstrating in central Paris against a
discriminatory curfew were beaten, shot, garotted and even drowned by
police and special troops. Thousands were rounded up and taken to
detention centers around the city and the prefecture of police, where
there were more beatings and killings.

How many died? No one seems to know for sure, even now. Probably around 200.


Yes, but to be fair (and Earl is being distinctly _un_fair) that's old
news. There are more recent, if less, spectacular cases. Both the UK and
French forces have their problems, and I think you're on shaky ground
when you start asking which force is closer to the US style of policing.

Old news yes, but never fully investigated, nor properly acknowledged by
the French authorities.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:24:15 +0100, "Keith W"
wrote:


"none" wrote in message
roups.com...
'More could be shot' - Met chief

so now you know -the met police chief says its likely more innocent
passengers will be shot in the head whilst riding the tube !!


Only if they refuse to stop when ordered by armed police.

Think of it as evolution in action.

Exactly.

If you are about to step on railroad tracks, and you hear the wail of
a train engine warning you not to cross, and you see a huge diesel
juggernaut barreling toward you, and you step onto the tracks anyway,
guess what's likely to happen?

The same goes for armed police. If a cadre of armed policemen scream
"FREEZE!" (or perhaps "WHAT'S ALL THIS THEN?"), then draw their
weapons and give chase, should you:

a) Immediately stop your travel, put your hands where they can be seen
and await police orders.
b) Evade and escape the police and upon being captured, physically
assault them with all your might.

Granted, there may be more possibilities of responses, but these two
represent the most common responses. Of these, which is most likely to
solve the dispute safely and amicably, and which is most likely to get
your stupid ass shot?

Now, how much brain power do you suppose is required to mull over
these two responses and make the correct decision? Hmmmm. Let's see...

Stop for the police and answer their questions...evade the police and
physically beat them when caught...hmmmm...

The best I can come up with the intellect of a retarded five-year-old.
Anything with a more brainpower than a retarded five-year-old should
clearly make the distinction between these two responses and make the
choice most likely to result in physical survival of the ordeal.

This stupid Brazilian apparently failed to make the grade. Odious as
Social Darwinism might be, it is nonetheless an inescapably profound
force in human culture. People who step on tracks in front of diesel
engines and people who assault armed policemen tend to be deselected.

If I were in a foreign country and could not speak the language, you
can be sure that if I heard the words "N'gawe Kolokaban!" and turned
around to see five heavily armed Gondwanaland policeman chasing me,
I'd likely stop and put my hands in the air. I would not run and then
punch them after being subdued. Why? Because I have more brains than a
retarded five-year-old.

The New Scotland Yard was correct; this event was a tragedy, not an
execution. It's as tragic as some dimbulb getting run over by a
locomotive. Does the locomotive driver "execute" the imbecile? No.
It's just a tragic event, that's all. And as long as people are
stupid, it will likely happen again and again.

- TR
- Welcome to the real world.

Since they were not in uniform, how was Mr de Menezes supposed to
recognize them as policemen instead of armed robbers?

"Earl Evleth" wrote in message
...
On 24/07/05 19:03, in article
1h07u31.1rh9wpn6nb0svN%this_address_is_for_spam@ya hoo.com, "chancellor of
the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
wrote:

Britain once had over 200 crimes punishable by the death penalty.
Perhaps a little retrogression has occurred.

You're being an utter moron on this Earl, and I honestly don't know why.
This is a serious issue, and your stupid jibes are putting you in really
bad company, regardless what side they might be on.


I am merely commenting on the dangers of retrogressing. If British
police are going to become like American police, why not just make
a bid to join. I am sure the State of Wales, the State of England
and the State of Scotland would be welcome.

My perception is sharper than a moron, and the fact that it hurts
brought out your comment. There was a larger danger in joining
up with Bush. It started with Thatcher and is ironically that
Blair is the next in line to continue the process.


We are not a Police State in the UK, and the USA is not a Police State
either. The fact remains that we are living in a Society which is becoming
more violent. At times the police in big cities (in just about any Country
which you may think of) have an impossible job. They make mistakes, and the
shooting of the Brazilian man was a bad mistake, but that doesn't mean that
we have lost confidence in the Police. We are all responsible for the
maintenance of Law and Order and I certainly feel bad that an innocent
civilian lost his life. But I have to balance that against the utter evil
perpetrated by at least 4 people on 7th July. Perhaps Earl isn't a moron,
but his contributions on this topic certainly justified the description.

JohnT

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:03:30 +0100,
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
wrote:

Earl Evleth wrote:

[]
Britain once had over 200 crimes punishable by the death penalty.
Perhaps a little retrogression has occurred.

You're being an utter moron on this Earl, and I honestly don't know why.
This is a serious issue, and your stupid jibes are putting you in really
bad company, regardless what side they might be on.

Indeed.

I heard a joke once that said in heaven, the cops will be British. It
would be sad to see that change.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Mxsmanic wrote:

That is hardly an offense worthy of death.

Certainly. But given the circumstances, the fact of running away from the
police, while wearing winter clothes in the middle of July, and then rushing
into a tube car, was certainly the most stupid thing to do. It can be viewed
as a dramatic but quite natural consequence of Darwin's theory of
evolution...

JL.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Keith W writes:

Only if they refuse to stop when ordered by armed police.

That is hardly an offense worthy of death.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the person in question should
have been killed because he was committing an offence by fleeing from
police (or indeed that he or anyone should be killed because of any
offence they might have committed in the past).

The issue is whether the police reasonably believed he was about to
commit an offence balanced against which the killing of him was the
lesser of two evils.

But then, despite your purported rationality, it's been evident in the
discussion of this issue that you haven't really thought about it.