Blogcritics: Comments on Shoot To Kill Policy

Comment by mojoala

Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:01:40 EDT

Yes, jr it appears we are f_ck_d!

Comment by cc

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:50:27 EDT

I, upset and frustrated and feeling helpless by these events, posted for the sake of being unkind. Not that I thought that anyone would even read comments on an entry that was last commented on sixteen days ago. So, I give Nancy lots of credit, and I take back my initial comment.

Comment by mojoala

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:42:51 EDT

It almost sounds like a murder/assisination job now. This is even more disturbing.

Comment by Nancy

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:27:06 EDT

Apparently, radically different information concerning the circumstances of the guy's shooting. Go to the link in comment #37.

Comment by mojoala

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:21:41 EDT

What prompted all these comments 2 weeks later?

Comment by Nancy

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:20:39 EDT

Having been to the various news sites, I am just horrified, and state that I am/was totally wrong.

Comment by Nancy

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:17:09 EDT

Nancy is humble enough to say that if the situation is not as originally represented, Nancy has made a gross error in judgement on this. And IF the allegations are true, that he was NOT running & refusing to stop, etc., that he was sitting peacefully, then this is beyond horrible, but why would they jump on him out of everyone else there? At any rate, at this point Nancy doesn't quite know what to think. They have to protect the public .... Thank God I'm not the British police; I couldn't make a judgement call like that.

Comment by JR

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:13:26 EDT

Here. It seems that since our domestic security forces are not capable of tracking and preventing terrorist activities, our governments have enacted draconian measures to further empower the very people who weren't smart enough to pick out the real perpetrators in the first place. We're fucked.

Comment by Aaman

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:50:57 EDT

What are the new revelations?

Comment by cc

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:48:47 EDT

Now that the new revelations have emerged, John and Dave and Nancy look really stupid now.

Comment by valery dawe

Mon, 1 Aug 2005 03:34:43 EDT

>how can you judge the general white population by the fault of a few< Colonizing large areas of the planet and subjugating whole populations isn't/wasn't the fault of a 'few'. The few were those who weren't part of the Union Jack-waving herd. >the guy should have stopped when asked< Okay, so you're gullible. >for reference i am white english next door neighbour black english or is that wrong thing to say ??< It's irrelevant.

Comment by dave

Sun, 31 Jul 2005 06:01:00 EDT

(I said Britain's head of state was ignorant for giving a speech praising centuries of racist behaviour and therefore it shouldn't surprise anyone that British cops, judges, Members of Parliament and the general white public are on the same level.) As td said (please referance what country you live in so that others can do the same.) quite new at this but your last comment sounds racist to me how can you judge the general white population by the fault of a few thats not saying i think the police where at fault the guy should have stopped when asked if he had been bomber what would have been said then for reference i am white english next door neighbour black english or is that wrong thing to say ??

Comment by valery dawe

Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:23:19 EDT

>If you want to accuse and entire country of being racist based on specific events you select from their history< Colonizing large areas of the planet and subjugating whole populations are specific "events"??? I said Britain's head of state was ignorant for giving a speech praising centuries of racist behaviour and therefore it shouldn't surprise anyone that British cops, judges, Members of Parliament and the general white public are on the same level.

Comment by mojoala

Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:18:22 EDT

It is still the cops words vs no one else. No video footage yet.

Comment by Dave

Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:04:15 EDT

Gee, all you have to is look like a third worlder and have a thick coat on and BAMM! your one dead mudder pucker! Charles de Menezes is now dead.

He didn't look like a third-worlder, he looked (by virtue of his behavior, not his appearance) like a terrorist: He emerged from a suspected terrorist hangout that had been under surveillance, wearing a long, bulky coat in July that gave him the appearance of hiding something under it, and then when the police identified themselves and told him to stop, he ran into the same subway system that has suffered two waves of terrorist attacks in the last few weeks, jumped the turnstile and ran onto the platform. So spare us the all you have to [do] is look like a third worlder crap.

Comment by mojoala

Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:22:30 EDT

td I am in the United States. We know more about racism more than any other, whereas we exposed and try to remove it, others still trying to hide it's existence....

Comment by mojoala

Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:18:59 EDT

What's the difference ? The one's that were killed if any by Brits are killed by Military. Charles was killed by Non-Military in a non-war-zone.

Comment by td

Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:10:32 EDT

I love racist debates. "You're a racist" "No, you're a racist" "No, you're a racist" "No, you're a racist" blah blah blah.... If you want to accuse and entire country of being racist based on specific events you select from their history then please referance what country you live in so that others can do the same. Racism sucks. It exists in every country and every culture. No one is exempt. That said, it doesn't mean every act by an individual of one race against someone of another race is fueled by racist motivations. Maybe the cop who shot him is a racist, and just wanted to cap a minority. Or maybe was given information that led him to truly believe the guy did have a bomb and was trying to execute an attack. But if your argument is: The cop must be racist because his country killed indians 500 years ago. Then please rethink your argument. Unless your talking about the french, this type of stereotyping is unproductive.

Comment by nick

Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:46:55 EDT

And remember that the British government is partly responsible for the death of tens of thousands of INNOCENT people in Irak. This is just one more innocent person killed by them. What's the difference ?

Comment by mojoala

Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:49:28 EDT

good point valere!

Comment by mojoala

Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:47:41 EDT

I'll second that!

Comment by bhw

Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:42:16 EDT

Not to mention that these cops didn't even do basic homework. They didn't know how many apartments were in the building they were watching, so they assumed everyone who lived in the building lived together. So somehow the shooting victim is the stupid one here. Love that.

Comment by valery dawe

Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:41:21 EDT

Of course the Brits are racist. They didn't colonize large areas of the planet and subjugate whole populations in order to demonstrate a belief in equality or human rights. A few years ago the Queen of England visited North America and proudly spoke of "500 years of European history" on that continent. Which in reality has been centuries of oppression for its original inhabitants. She probably didn't write the speech but she didn't have to show such callous ignorance by agreeing to read it. If Britain's head of state can display such unabashed racism it's not suprising that British cops, judges, Members of Parliament and the general white public are on the same level.

Comment by mojoala

Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:40:50 EDT

A declaration that you are a policeman does constitute fact that you are a policeman. Muggers have been known to use that declaration to dupe thier victims.

Comment by mojoala

Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:39:06 EDT

Yes that is their policy. Is it a good policy based on suspicion? I would hope a policy would be based on knowing, not believing or suspecting. All one has to claim after killing someone is that they suspected someone of carrying a bomb....