blind support has never been, and never should be an element of democracy.Scepticism is, however, indispensable in any true democracy. So, do you wish to live in a democracy or a dictatorship? The choice is yours.
What we need to do though, is to find a balance between asserting (and respecting) police authority versus human rights/civil liberties.
At the moment, the police (and the public) find themselves at the wrong end of the pendulum swing. Current policy and legislation favours criminals and gives their rights more weight than the law abiding, tax paying citizens.
I'm not sure if someone did a serious study they'd find that current policy does indeed favour criminals. The media and public response can often be very emotional. Also, I don't think that finding a thief in your house gives you the right to kill him/her(especially if unarmed or in the back). Anyone who owns a firearm should at the very least be taught how to react when confronted with such a situation.
I can assure you, things like sending paedophiles to prison and then releasing them again after serving a fraction of their sentence not only favours the criminals and perverts, it makes a MOCKERY of the justice system, the police, the victims and the ordinary citizens.
As for finding a thief in my house? DAMN STRAIGHT Im gonna shoot his head off. He has no right to be in my house, and they tend to get violent when confronted/startled. Shoot or be shot. Besides, s dead criminal cant do crime. And that can only be a good thing.
If they shot him five times, Im sure there was a reason. The law enforcement guys with guns in this country are highly trained and are specialists in their field. This Brazilian obviously made them believe they had reason to shoot.
If the police shows are anything to go by, I think a whole lot more people need a bullet. Less YOBS and NEDs on the streets.
This will no doubt create fear. And fear of the police is always better than a totla disregard for them. And their authority. This country is getting out of hand- mainly because it is too soft.
With regard to the sentencing, I used that to explain my reasoning as to why I feel policies and legislation favour the criminals in this country.
Oh, there is a reason, I'm sure. Just not a valid one. But I'm not the one with burden of proof - the police and police supporters such as yourself are.
As for the Brazilian, the only thing I've discerned that he has done, according to reports, was to be brown, wear a jacket on a hot day and be terrified of the police. Again, if he was subdued, as eyewitness reports say, there was no reason to shoot him - in fact, it would be a very unwise thing to do, if he were a suspect. The vital intelligence that comes from suspects cannot be heard if they have been killed, obviously.
"[P]olice shows"? Please. Be serious.
I won't go into the causes of crime with you and won't bother posting from criminology journals and reports because it is off topic. Furthermore, it is apparent your thoughts on the issue are totalitarian, so I wouldn't get anywhere anyway.
adrian t, with all due respect, we don't tend to judge crime and law enforcment issues by watching police shows. Not where i was brought up, anyway. Also, I think you'll find that to make a good argument you need to quote serious studies and statistics. Reacting to tabloid reports isn't serious. We are in a democracy(or at least, we are supposed to be). Therefore, justice is paramount for those who are victims and for those who commit crime. In a true democracy we don't kill unless it is in self-defence.This is why I suggest that if people are gonna have guns(which I would not encourage), they should at the very least be trained to deal with criminals so as not to kill an unarmed person. You don't have to like democracy. Again:it's your choice.
I have good friends within the police force, both here and in South Africa. They are trained to deal effectively and efficiently with criminals and YES mistakes can and probably DO happen.
However, I am totally convinced of their innocence and until a report says otherwise I support them 100%.
I like democracy, I do. We as South Africans fought decades of oppression to finally gain democratic freedom. What I dont like is when the system is so manipulated and distorted that we find ourselves living in a nanny State filled with over-sensitive people. I find this to be more of a restriction on our rights and freedoms than any dictator could possibly impose. The only difference is, a dictator would be a bit more honest about it.
Im sorry that I dont have statistics to back up my claims and that I led you to believe I base my opinions purely on TV shows. I do read the news every day, but I find the media to be waaaaaay too left sided for my liking. The BBC in particular is guilty of this, given that they are refusing to even call the terrorists what they are: TERRORISTS. For this reason, I take everything they say with a pinch of salt. Media are more biased than I could ever be.
I can fully understand if you guys dont want my opinion, Ill gladly abide by your wishes and not comment if you like.
I was however, asked to comment, and I DID say I was stubborn. Sorry if Ive bored or irritated you guys. : (
Adrian t, you remain welcome to comment, even if we disagree, and will not refrain from letting you know! I also have a friend in the police force, here in France. He was full of hope when he joined, and I trusted he could make a difference. Now, he is rather disapointed, because, he says, being in the minority, it is very hard to change mentalities(ie. racist, sexist, violent). I didn't notice that the BBC didn't call terrorists 'terrorists'. Here's a few links: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4714485.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4713651.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4713759.stm
Anyway, what is the definition of terror? " Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes." http://www.answers.com/terror&r=67
Well, I'm sure that definition can be applied to many parts of the globe, starting with Iraq and Palestine. Others in the past are El Salvador, Guatemala... Remember: terror breeds terror.
Once again, I appreciate your openess to allow me to state my opinions. I am stubborn and will never change, but I appreciate your upfront approach.
Furthermore, no matter how aggressive I may or may not sound, I actually like this ongoing dialogue. Nothing makes me feel better than being out-debated and manoevured by a superior intellect. (Thank you Jez.)
I cant speak for all the police forces/services the world over, I can only base my opinions on the two I admire and respect. They are the South African Police Services and the British Transport Police. (Which would also incorporate the British Metropolitan Police as they are the same, the BTP however, specialise in transport related crime)
As a result, I cant comment on the French police, as I am unfamiliar with them. If there is racism involved,with ANY police officer/service I would distance myself from any relationship with them. Coming from a country that was once synonymous with racism, I detest racism and bigotry.
I personally do not base my opinions of people based on their ethnic origin, religious beliefs or sexual preference. I believe it is not my place to pass judgement and everybody is entitled to their beliefs.
If as your friend says, this discrimination is the case in France, I agree with you entirely and would not support them in any way. But trust me, if this was the motive for the shooting in London, it will be dealt with quickly and harshly. The UK prides itself on it cultural acceptance of ALL people. Incidents like the recent bombings only serve to undo these efforts. And that is regrettable.
The article I read was in the Daily Mail, Sunday 09 July. I could not locate the article as it had to be unlocked with a subscription. The article was called: "Whose side is the BEEB on, anyway?" and it claimed that the Head of the BBC had requested that all articles referring to "terrorists" change the word to "bombers" instead. It went on to say the reason for this was that they did not want to cause offence to international readership(How or why that would be, is anybodys guess).
Terror does breed terror, I agree. But if we have an opportunity to minimise the extent of terror, I say we take it.
Thanks again for the ASS-KICKING JEZ, it does wonders for my self-esteem. I would like you to know that I now consider you a friend, as unlikely as it may sound, and even though I jokingly refer to you as a Terrorist Sympathiser.
I have good friend opn police forces too. I used to live with a man who is on the London force. I know others in the OPP in Canada as well as an RCMP. I also know officers and riot police in Tokyo and LAPD officers. My knowing them and they being good people does not negate the fact that unjustified police killings occur. Nor does it negate the stories of bad police officers that some of them have told me about (or ones I know personally). In fact, my knowing so many police officers is entirely irrelevant.
Again, resort to force requires burden of proof. Either you, or the police need to provide evidence that it was somehow right to shoot a man in the back and neck (according to the victim's cousin who saw the body) while he was subdued. You can write a million times over that you are "totally convinced," but that does not constitute any evidence. Either put up some evidence, or please respect our time.
The history and present state of South Africa as well as the media are irrelevant to this issue, so I shall not comment on them.
I doubt there is such a big difference among different police forces in western europe. I am a british and french citizen, and can assure you from living in these two countries all my life, that racism exists in different forms, but on a similar level-and within the police force as within the population. You should be careful of not idealising the Brits...
I am simply saying, before throwing out racism allegations and biased (it is a relative of his and I doubt he would admit his cousin was up to no good) witness reports, wait for the official report to be released.
I will gladly condemn this shooting- only IF the report says it was unjustified.
As Jez has pointed out, institutional racism is a documented problem in the London force.
Additionally, whether or not he was up to "no good" (he was going to his job as an electrician, if that is "no good") has nothing to do with what his cousin saw when he looked at the body, so I am exceedingly confused with your bringing it up.
Again, the resort to force is the side that requires the burden of proof, not the side that objects to the use of force. All you keep repeating is your opinion that goes against the available information. We know it. Now, please post a real argument - one with evidence - or please respect our time.
You may post your opinions, based on your perceptions of events, yet, when I do the same I am asked to stop wasting your time?
The guy was an illegal immigrant, therefore he was not "innocent". There is well documented evidence of racism in the South African Police Services too, does that mean because of its history (under Apartheid [look that up]) ALL current South African Police Service officers are racist?
NO. It doesn't. So stop making assumptions and heed your own advice. Back it up with evidence. the only problem is, you may have to wait for the same report i am waiting for.
And as for not commenting, if Jez asks me to refrain I will respect his wishes.
Hypocrite? One thing you have yet to notice is that I have not been spouting opinion. I have been making an argument. That is, I have been using premises based on evidence to draw conclusions. You, on the other hand, have not. ou have been repeating your opinion over and over.
Next, the punishment for visa violations for any nation that pretends to be civilised is not to tackle someone then shoot him in the back. Furthermore, that information is irrelevant because it is post hoc and was not the motivation for the police actions. That should be clear.
And, as I have mentioned elsewhere, there is no way to prove that race was the key factor in this shooting in the way one can prove a mathematical formula. However, knowing the event and the history of the force in London (two points of evidence), it is very likely.
Now, care to make an argument? I already know your opinion: you support the police unless some report says there was wrong-doing.
Adrian, I am glad you now support an inquiry. As DJEB has said, the burden of proof weighs heavily on the police, for they have killed a man. Whenever the police kill someone, there must be an inquiry, even when their motivation is clear, which is far from the case here. The fact is we must be told, and soon, what really happened. I am not sure the police will be forthcoming, since the evidence is not good for them. We must, however, continue to mount pressure on them. I have said this before, but the police are in a position of responability and must not be allowed to act with impunity.
The police don't need the benefit of the doubt. they already have the benefit of the protection of their seniors and ministers. If we do not put the pressure on, the inquiry may never come out. They already said it might take months.
Jez, as you and I have said on a number of occations, resort to force requires burden of proof. I'd prefer not to live in a society where it does not, though I could name some examples.
Lets leave the police alone to do their jobs.
RépondreSupprimerThey need our SUPPORT not our scepticism. The British Police are the most patient and professional Police Service I have ever witnessed.
blind support has never been, and never should be an element of democracy.Scepticism is, however, indispensable in any true democracy.
RépondreSupprimerSo, do you wish to live in a democracy or a dictatorship? The choice is yours.
What we need to do though, is to find a balance between asserting (and respecting) police authority versus human rights/civil liberties.
RépondreSupprimerAt the moment, the police (and the public) find themselves at the wrong end of the pendulum swing. Current policy and legislation favours criminals and gives their rights more weight than the law abiding, tax paying citizens.
THIS NEEDS TO STOP.
I'm not sure if someone did a serious study they'd find that current policy does indeed favour criminals. The media and public response can often be very emotional. Also, I don't think that finding a thief in your house gives you the right to kill him/her(especially if unarmed or in the back). Anyone who owns a firearm should at the very least be taught how to react when confronted with such a situation.
RépondreSupprimerI can assure you, things like sending paedophiles to prison and then releasing them again after serving a fraction of their sentence not only favours the criminals and perverts, it makes a MOCKERY of the justice system, the police, the victims and the ordinary citizens.
RépondreSupprimerAs for finding a thief in my house? DAMN STRAIGHT Im gonna shoot his head off. He has no right to be in my house, and they tend to get violent when confronted/startled. Shoot or be shot. Besides, s dead criminal cant do crime. And that can only be a good thing.
From the reports we have had (ie. Brazilian man shot in the back after he was subdued) we need much, much more skepticism and far, far less support.
RépondreSupprimerAdditionally, sentencing is neither here nor there with respect to this issue - it is a red herring. The issue is the use of force in this case.
If they shot him five times, Im sure there was a reason. The law enforcement guys with guns in this country are highly trained and are specialists in their field. This Brazilian obviously made them believe they had reason to shoot.
RépondreSupprimerIf the police shows are anything to go by, I think a whole lot more people need a bullet. Less YOBS and NEDs on the streets.
This will no doubt create fear. And fear of the police is always better than a totla disregard for them. And their authority. This country is getting out of hand- mainly because it is too soft.
With regard to the sentencing, I used that to explain my reasoning as to why I feel policies and legislation favour the criminals in this country.
Oh, there is a reason, I'm sure. Just not a valid one. But I'm not the one with burden of proof - the police and police supporters such as yourself are.
RépondreSupprimerAs for the Brazilian, the only thing I've discerned that he has done, according to reports, was to be brown, wear a jacket on a hot day and be terrified of the police. Again, if he was subdued, as eyewitness reports say, there was no reason to shoot him - in fact, it would be a very unwise thing to do, if he were a suspect. The vital intelligence that comes from suspects cannot be heard if they have been killed, obviously.
"[P]olice shows"? Please. Be serious.
I won't go into the causes of crime with you and won't bother posting from criminology journals and reports because it is off topic. Furthermore, it is apparent your thoughts on the issue are totalitarian, so I wouldn't get anywhere anyway.
And again, the sentencing is a red herring.
adrian t, with all due respect, we don't tend to judge crime and law enforcment issues by watching police shows. Not where i was brought up, anyway.
RépondreSupprimerAlso, I think you'll find that to make a good argument you need to quote serious studies and statistics. Reacting to tabloid reports isn't serious.
We are in a democracy(or at least, we are supposed to be). Therefore, justice is paramount for those who are victims and for those who commit crime. In a true democracy we don't kill unless it is in self-defence.This is why I suggest that if people are gonna have guns(which I would not encourage), they should at the very least be trained to deal with criminals so as not to kill an unarmed person.
You don't have to like democracy. Again:it's your choice.
Ce commentaire a été supprimé par un administrateur du blog.
RépondreSupprimerYou both have valid points.
RépondreSupprimerBUT
I have good friends within the police force, both here and in South Africa. They are trained to deal effectively and efficiently with criminals and YES mistakes can and probably DO happen.
However, I am totally convinced of their innocence and until a report says otherwise I support them 100%.
I like democracy, I do. We as South Africans fought decades of oppression to finally gain democratic freedom. What I dont like is when the system is so manipulated and distorted that we find ourselves living in a nanny State filled with over-sensitive people. I find this to be more of a restriction on our rights and freedoms than any dictator could possibly impose. The only difference is, a dictator would be a bit more honest about it.
Im sorry that I dont have statistics to back up my claims and that I led you to believe I base my opinions purely on TV shows. I do read the news every day, but I find the media to be waaaaaay too left sided for my liking. The BBC in particular is guilty of this, given that they are refusing to even call the terrorists what they are: TERRORISTS. For this reason, I take everything they say with a pinch of salt. Media are more biased than I could ever be.
I can fully understand if you guys dont want my opinion, Ill gladly abide by your wishes and not comment if you like.
I was however, asked to comment, and I DID say I was stubborn. Sorry if Ive bored or irritated you guys. : (
Adrian t, you remain welcome to comment, even if we disagree, and will not refrain from letting you know!
RépondreSupprimerI also have a friend in the police force, here in France. He was full of hope when he joined, and I trusted he could make a difference. Now, he is rather disapointed, because, he says, being in the minority, it is very hard to change mentalities(ie. racist, sexist, violent).
I didn't notice that the BBC didn't call terrorists 'terrorists'.
Here's a few links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4714485.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4713651.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4713759.stm
Anyway, what is the definition of terror?
" Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes."
http://www.answers.com/terror&r=67
Well, I'm sure that definition can be applied to many parts of the globe, starting with Iraq and Palestine. Others in the past are El Salvador, Guatemala...
Remember: terror breeds terror.
Once again, I appreciate your openess to allow me to state my opinions. I am stubborn and will never change, but I appreciate your upfront approach.
RépondreSupprimerFurthermore, no matter how aggressive I may or may not sound, I actually like this ongoing dialogue. Nothing makes me feel better than being out-debated and manoevured by a superior intellect. (Thank you Jez.)
I cant speak for all the police forces/services the world over, I can only base my opinions on the two I admire and respect. They are the South African Police Services and the British Transport Police.
(Which would also incorporate the British Metropolitan Police as they are the same, the BTP however, specialise in transport related crime)
As a result, I cant comment on the French police, as I am unfamiliar with them. If there is racism involved,with ANY police officer/service I would distance myself from any relationship with them. Coming from a country that was once synonymous with racism, I detest racism and bigotry.
I personally do not base my opinions of people based on their ethnic origin, religious beliefs or sexual preference. I believe it is not my place to pass judgement and everybody is entitled to their beliefs.
If as your friend says, this discrimination is the case in France, I agree with you entirely and would not support them in any way. But trust me, if this was the motive for the shooting in London, it will be dealt with quickly and harshly. The UK prides itself on it cultural acceptance of ALL people. Incidents like the recent bombings only serve to undo these efforts. And that is regrettable.
The article I read was in the Daily Mail, Sunday 09 July. I could not locate the article as it had to be unlocked with a subscription. The article was called: "Whose side is the BEEB on, anyway?" and it claimed that the Head of the BBC had requested that all articles referring to "terrorists" change the word to "bombers" instead. It went on to say the reason for this was that they did not want to cause offence to international readership(How or why that would be, is anybodys guess).
Terror does breed terror, I agree. But if we have an opportunity to minimise the extent of terror, I say we take it.
Thanks again for the ASS-KICKING JEZ, it does wonders for my self-esteem. I would like you to know that I now consider you a friend, as unlikely as it may sound, and even though I jokingly refer to you as a Terrorist Sympathiser.
THANKS AGAIN. : )
I have good friend opn police forces too. I used to live with a man who is on the London force. I know others in the OPP in Canada as well as an RCMP. I also know officers and riot police in Tokyo and LAPD officers. My knowing them and they being good people does not negate the fact that unjustified police killings occur. Nor does it negate the stories of bad police officers that some of them have told me about (or ones I know personally). In fact, my knowing so many police officers is entirely irrelevant.
RépondreSupprimerAgain, resort to force requires burden of proof. Either you, or the police need to provide evidence that it was somehow right to shoot a man in the back and neck (according to the victim's cousin who saw the body) while he was subdued. You can write a million times over that you are "totally convinced," but that does not constitute any evidence. Either put up some evidence, or please respect our time.
The history and present state of South Africa as well as the media are irrelevant to this issue, so I shall not comment on them.
I doubt there is such a big difference among different police forces in western europe. I am a british and french citizen, and can assure you from living in these two countries all my life, that racism exists in different forms, but on a similar level-and within the police force as within the population.
RépondreSupprimerYou should be careful of not idealising the Brits...
I am not an unwavering supporter of the police.
RépondreSupprimerI am simply saying, before throwing out racism allegations and biased (it is a relative of his and I doubt he would admit his cousin was up to no good) witness reports, wait for the official report to be released.
I will gladly condemn this shooting- only IF the report says it was unjustified.
As Jez has pointed out, institutional racism is a documented problem in the London force.
RépondreSupprimerAdditionally, whether or not he was up to "no good" (he was going to his job as an electrician, if that is "no good") has nothing to do with what his cousin saw when he looked at the body, so I am exceedingly confused with your bringing it up.
Again, the resort to force is the side that requires the burden of proof, not the side that objects to the use of force. All you keep repeating is your opinion that goes against the available information. We know it. Now, please post a real argument - one with evidence - or please respect our time.
DJEB I notice that you are an extreme hypocrite.
RépondreSupprimerYou may post your opinions, based on your perceptions of events, yet, when I do the same I am asked to stop wasting your time?
The guy was an illegal immigrant, therefore he was not "innocent". There is well documented evidence of racism in the South African Police Services too, does that mean because of its history (under Apartheid [look that up]) ALL current South African Police Service officers are racist?
NO. It doesn't. So stop making assumptions and heed your own advice. Back it up with evidence. the only problem is, you may have to wait for the same report i am waiting for.
And as for not commenting, if Jez asks me to refrain I will respect his wishes.
Please stop wasting MY time.
Hypocrite? One thing you have yet to notice is that I have not been spouting opinion. I have been making an argument. That is, I have been using premises based on evidence to draw conclusions. You, on the other hand, have not. ou have been repeating your opinion over and over.
RépondreSupprimerNext, the punishment for visa violations for any nation that pretends to be civilised is not to tackle someone then shoot him in the back. Furthermore, that information is irrelevant because it is post hoc and was not the motivation for the police actions. That should be clear.
And, as I have mentioned elsewhere, there is no way to prove that race was the key factor in this shooting in the way one can prove a mathematical formula. However, knowing the event and the history of the force in London (two points of evidence), it is very likely.
Now, care to make an argument? I already know your opinion: you support the police unless some report says there was wrong-doing.
Adrian, I am glad you now support an inquiry.
RépondreSupprimerAs DJEB has said, the burden of proof weighs heavily on the police, for they have killed a man. Whenever the police kill someone, there must be an inquiry, even when their motivation is clear, which is far from the case here. The fact is we must be told, and soon, what really happened. I am not sure the police will be forthcoming, since the evidence is not good for them. We must, however, continue to mount pressure on them. I have said this before, but the police are in a position of responability and must not be allowed to act with impunity.
I agree Jez.
RépondreSupprimerI am simply giving them (the Police) the benefit of the doubt until the inquiry is concluded and the report is released.
I know.
RépondreSupprimerThe police don't need the benefit of the doubt. they already have the benefit of the protection of their seniors and ministers. If we do not put the pressure on, the inquiry may never come out. They already said it might take months.
RépondreSupprimerJez, as you and I have said on a number of occations, resort to force requires burden of proof. I'd prefer not to live in a society where it does not, though I could name some examples.
RépondreSupprimerDJEB:
RépondreSupprimerThe little footnote says "comments" if it said "arguments" I might argue. If I felt like it. Which I dont.
Don't feel like it? That's convenient. Looks to me like you can't.
RépondreSupprimerI guess that's right.
RépondreSupprimerI thank you for not wasting our time with any more of your moronic drivel.
RépondreSupprimerThank you.
So, junior fascisti, the facts are out and you were flat out wrong. Surprise, surprise.
RépondreSupprimer