Not blaming the victim

Allow me to disagree with Perry de Havilland where he says:

Anyone running from armed cops who have challenged them first in London today should expect to get shot dead given the clear and present danger we are in

Well, uhm, no. This is crap. If we don't execute murderers and rapists why then should we have a death penalty for "failure to obey police instructions"?

What is needed is a bit of common sense, or, failing that, well defined protocols: either you arrest a suspect, or you put a tail on him, but once you put a tail on him, you don't put a few in his head if he wants to use public transport.

13:09 Gepost door GMT +1/+2 (c) 2006 The dog --- WHAT'S YOUR OPINION? / WAT IS UW GEDACHT? | Permalink | Commentaren (5) |  Facebook |


Not an Execution. Execution is deliberate; self-defense is instantaneous. Big difference, in my opinion.

Gepost door: Adriane | 25-07-05

Collateral damage In our all too peaceful Europe (at least some parts of it) we don't realize any more that this is really a tough world to live in. Terrorism is war, undeclared, but to declare wars is not done any more, not after 1939. I wouldn't try at least in Manila or Mindanao to run for a police or an army checkpoint.

Well the Brasilian ran, and he had reason to do so. He was an illegal alien. This is war baby, and the guy was just collateral dammage, shit happens.

Gepost door: VH | 25-07-05

tough luck mate The reason for not arresting a suspect is so you can put a tail and or tap on him and see if he contacts others.

If we assume that the guy left his London house/flat with the now infamous bulky coat and did not immediately signal a cab, a reasonable conjecture would be that he was about to use public transport.

At which point there were two alternatives: either the suspect should have been apprehended, or he should have been allowed to continue his way.

Gepost door: dof | 25-07-05

Philosophy of War I suggest they also do some research in the mean time, and write a thesis about the proper use of violence in Western philosophy, from Aristoteles to Wittgenstein. With an overview of case studies of course.

In the mean time the guy with his bulky coat enters the Undergound and sets off his bomb. Or not. Who knows? And who can judge what kind of decisions have to be made in split seconds. And we don't even know the facts.

Errors can be made of course, nobody is perfect. That's why the Brazilian guy is collateral dammage. All too often we ask from the State all the manna it can offer from its Public Skies. Money, shelter, safety. Aren't we a bit responsible ourselves? Like behaving sensibly, and not run away from a police control wearing a bulky coat in the Underground? Especially in the context of the bomb attacks and the imminent threat for more?

Gepost door: VH | 27-07-05

- "And who can judge what kind of decisions have to be made in split seconds."

Well, that's why we have protocols: so the decisions are made in advance.

Well, usually, as in this case, the protocols are desgned AFTER a fuck-up, but that's the point, we have to learn from our mistakes instead of just blaming the victim and pretend that nothing happened.

Gepost door: dof | 27-07-05

De commentaren zijn gesloten.