The Nice attack. A question.

I had 24 Quotes on this topic when I logged on this morning and as usual I'll reply to all of them, but I can't be bothered with this one! Suggest something which, although outside the box, is an unpleasant way to resolve a problem, and you can bet your life some idiot will come up with a dozen million-to-one-against hypotheses to discredit it.

 

Noted. (There's always one, isn't there! They're known as 'useful idiots')

 

Yes. The Minority Report was just a movie, bud. Western culture values due process for a reason.

You think that they've "embarked on this kind of terrorism" because they're not afraid of the consequences? Seems like a pretty bad way of achieving stated ends.

 

He was known to justice, but not on a list of suspected terrorists. In case he was and in case security agencies would have understood he was preparing such an attack they would have stopped him as soon as he would have acted [if spied, he would have had no possibility to leave the truck and then to come back to take it on his bicycle ... simply the truck would have been full of policemen ...].

 

I don't understand any of that! If you have an aim, and there's nothing to stop you achieving it (ie you're not afraid of any consequences), then it'll be easier to achieve the aim, wont it? You can feel free to not answer that - it's a rhetorical question.

 

No answer have you sunshine, you call for policeman to kill someone for planning a terrorist atrocity yet you were too scared to go to the police about two guys committing an aledged act of indeceny in the village toilets!

 

You remember that??? Blimey I've got a follower!

 

It's a pity they didn't shoot him before the attack, then all those poor souls would still be alive and unscarred.

 

Lets not forget that the heart of this discussion is the inviolability of due process. But to keep going down this particular rabbit hole: What consequence might such a man be afraid of? Being shot? I think he's made peace with being shot. The fact that we might shoot him had already been considered by the time he went down this course.

 

its a valid question... because police, with all their evidence and "proof" and intelligence ahead of time, have managed to kill innocent people along the way... by accident... so why shouldn't we assume the police in your scenario, might make a mistake as well, and might get it wrong... wouldn't you want them to pause and take a moment, rather than shoot to kill... wouldn't you want a buffer in between the trigger and the justice system? I know I would want it, because some day, they might get it wrong with me...

but like I said... if you want it to be law, for cops to be judge jury and execution, simply modify your existing laws to allow for that... until then, perhaps you should follow the laws on the books... not your emotional ones which are prone to making mistakes...

P.S. do you need a list of people accidentally shot and killed by police who made mistakes? or anyone else? I'm sure their families wish someone didn't make a "mistake" despite being certain... but what do you care, you want your emotions placated rather than justice followed...

 

Nope, I don't understand that either. 'made peace with being shot'? What does that mean?

 

He knew he was going to be shot. That wasn't a deterrent here. He didn't think "Well they're not gonna shoot me, so I might as well do it!" Fear of punishment was not a factor.

And again, due process is the important issue here. Do you really believe that it ought to be circumvented in some sense?

 

If someone under surveillance is surrounded by weaponry/explosives, and is heard announcing his intention to carry out (for examples) the Nice or the Charlie Hebdo attacks, how can the surveillance operatives 'mistake' that? Much as we might wish it otherwise, we don't live in a perfect world; these things are becoming part of everyday life and must be dealt with. If you have a better idea let's hear it??

 

I was referring to the global jihad, not individuals. Suicide bombers are convinced they're going to paradise so I guess that's their motivation. None of us understand their middle east psyche.

I'd much rather it wasn't, but I'm a pragmatist; if someone is hell-bent on killing us, we have to kill them before they get the chance. No-brainer to me!

 

What exactly is your idea? Shoot every suspected terrorist or criminal that comes within a certain radius of a weapon? The problem isn't that surveillance operatives are just big ol' softies who'd rather let an attack happen, it's that sometimes there's nothing they could have done.

That's reality.

 

In context, only if they're discovered planning an atrocity, in which case shoot the planner, no questions asked. Jesus I can't make it plainer than that! Or if you've got a better idea let's hear it?

 

We? Don't you mean someone has to kill them for you!

By the way, you have stated that in our "depraved" society you think a bit of Sharia law would do us good. Is execution without trial just one of the things these terrorists believe in that you agree with?

 

isn't it amazing how you expand and add a ton of extra details you didn't include in your original posting now? now suddenly he's surrounded by explosives and weapons and is heard by people directly in the same room or a room away or a listening device someplace while they watch across the street with a trained sniper ready to shoot or something? this is pretty different from your first post, "someone on a watch list observed planning"... I guess you had to add in all the explosives and weapons now hey...

if someone is a direct and immediate threat and is holding a gun or loading an explosive and has a trigger in their hand, you go ahead and shoot them... but if they aren't sitting in a room of weapons and explosives, aren't an immediate threat, or you would just like to, perhaps its best you follow the laws on the books which require you to get a warrant to break down their door and arrest them and seize property... but I don't want police shooting first on an assumption they understand whats going on, only to find out they were wrong after the fact... so please, stop changing your scenario and adding in all sorts of details after the original post which clearly does not make it an immediate threat, just a presumed potential future threat that is "planning" not "acting" on those plans...

but just to clarify, if he is heard planning an attack, but does not currently have the weapons or explosives or is performing the attack, I do NOT want him shot dead... I want him taken into custody... however if taking him into custody for this alleged crime, and he points a weapon or presents an immediate threat, then okay shoot him... but for the future, if you're going to change the scenario, don't be shocked when people respond and aren't mind readers and didn't know you meant to add that he is surrounded with weapons and explosives and presents an immediate threat, thats seriously dishonest of you... maybe put ALL that in your first posting, not the 163rd...

 

Sure I have a better idea. Arrest the planner, in accordance with every law which is designed to protect the individual from the violence of the state.

 

Alright then, delete the bit about 'surrounded by explosives' - I only added it as further proof of intent, but the intent itself is enough. Owing to the current capacity of our prisons he'll be free within a year or two max to make way for another jihadi. I mean they're coming thick and fast; and make no mistake - they going to be coming thicker and faster?

 

His guilt has already been proved by the intelligence observers, so what's the bloody point of putting him through due process? They'll be running rings around us soon - they're much smarter than we are!

 

if you're going to remove the explosives and weapons surrounding him... then no, I do not want police to rush in shooting to kill, they should be rushing into to take him into custody... just because you presume he will get out within a year or two, does not mean police should become executioners because you're upset with prosecutors, judges, or juries... they are there and serve a VERY important purpose... I mean at this point if you want people executed who don't present an immediate danger, why not spread that over to all sorts of other crimes, or alleged crimes... just have police execute people on the streets and hang their dead bodies from the lamp posts right? is that the stupidity you want to predicate?

like I said, if you're unhappy with the justice system, have lawmakers pass a law giving police that power, until then, live within the scope of the legal system, not your emotionally unstable desires...

 

This is why we fought a war against you 240 years ago. It isn't up the "intelligence observer" to exact punishment at his whim. Due process exists to ensure that the guys with the guns don't get to decide what "proof" is.

 

Yours and Darkbane's idealism is an example to us all. I think we're done here.

 

Do you really believe that? Do you really think that someone who believes his God wants him to kill innocent people is smarter than you? Really?