"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents"

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon




Owned...

The point is that fight or flight is a well documented stress response...

Then document it, dumbass, and stop polluting this thread with arguments that rely on citations about Rodney King being chased down the freeway by the LAPD.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


A special branch officer who was involved in the dirty war in Northern Ireland says it does - so who is right, him or you?

We were right about Iraq and we'll be right about this too. So why not just give it up?

Strangely, I think that I'm rigth despite what you claims to be unaviodable evidence - your witness may have some crediblity, but since he never has been even close to a sucide bomber, I don't concider his evidence relevant.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Who is 'we'? A bunch of malcontents urging the chaos on so you can have your revolution?

I don't want a revolution. I want to keep living my life without a bunch of misguided busy bodies like you sticking their beek in, eroding my civil liberties and privacy and setting up all sorts of nasty intrusive and completely ineffective measures in the name of security, but really because it gives you a hard on, for what is at best a remote and insignificant threat.

The lunacy of it all - we've set up baggage x-ray machines at at tin shed outback airports just on the off chance of a hijacking from the back of beyond. The last time I checked there were no Taliban in the Australian Western desert.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Strangely, I think that I'm rigth despite what you claims to be unaviodable evidence - your witness may have some crediblity, but since he never has been even close to a sucide bomber, I don't concider his evidence relevant.

And what pray tell is so special about a suicide bomber? What is the difference between how you treat a suicide bomber and say a sniper? Or a drunk driver for that matter, which is a much bigger threat here than terrorists.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


I don't want a revolution. I want to keep living my life without a bunch of misguided busy bodies like you sticking their beek in, eroding my civil liberties and privacy and setting up all sorts of nasty intrusive and completely ineffective measures in the name of security, but really because it gives you a hard on, for what is at best a remote and insignificant threat.

The lunacy of it all - we've set up baggage x-ray machines at at tin shed outback airports just on the off chance of a hijacking from the back of beyond. The last time I checked there were no Taliban in the Australian Western desert.

Indeed. You want to be blown up by that suicide bomber that the police decided they shouldn't shoot.

You think the first cop to jump on him would have done so if he were not certain his partner would finish the job?

But, yes, I agree, the lives of victims of a criminal act are not worth saving if it means that you lose your right to ignore the orders of the police.

BTW, when did 'The Right to Ignore Police' get enshrined in our civil liberties, anyways?

[notyoueither]

at best a remote and insignificant threat

Eight bombs in the last fortnight... remote and insignificant threat...

[Alexander's Horse]

even if you living in London your chances of being a victim of a terrorist blast are infinitessimal - 50 victims out of what? 5 million people? 1 in a 100,000 chance roughly?

[notyoueither]

So, the police should just ignore it then, yes?

[Agathon]

It's bizarre. They seem to want to give up the fundamental rule that governs policing in our countries: people cannot be arrested or manhandled without just cause.

We have this rule for a good reason, even though it might on occasion mean that suicide bombers get away with it.

In an ordinary cost benefit analysis people weigh the detaining of the innocent for flimsy reasons against the seriousness of the crime they are suspected of attempting. The more serious the crime, the flimsier the reasons.

But that's not how our justice system works. You cannot arrest or detain or shoot people for flimsy reasons, no matter what the seriousness of the crime they are suspected of attempting. It's the same reasoning as that behind the presumption of innocence. The state has to overcome a greater burden of proof, because if we didn't have that, innocent people would be arrested for bad reasons. We pay for this important social liberty by making ourselves more vulnerable to criminals, but that is because we think that social liberties are more important, and that the potential for abuses if we don't preserve them is worse than the alternative.

People find it easier to commit crimes in free societies. If you want to change that, then the cost is making your country much more of a police state.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Agathon




Owned...

First of all, I think that there aren't anything to laugh of, but if you feel that way, please be welcome, and oh, if you think that you have "Owned..." anyone, then please enjoy it ....

The point is that fight or flight is a well documented stress response in which people behave irrationally. Being confronted by the police is a very stressful situation for most people (except for criminals who are used to it), and often provokes a fight or flight response. That's why soccer moms end up leading the police on wild car chases. The police have stopped engaging in such chases in most areas simply because it almost always leads to worse outcomes (collateral damage, etc.). This is because the awareness and judgement of both the person being chased, and to a lesser extent the officers is impaired by the stress response.

Police are now being trained to recognize when they are experiencing a stress response like "fight or flight" and how to deal with it effectively so that their judgement is not impaired. We don't have the time or resources to give every citizen the same training, so they aren't going to deal with the stress as well as the cops.

What's exactly the same in this case is that this resulted in all likelihood from Mr Menezes experiencing an acute stress response that impaired his judgement and caused him to run like hell. There's nothing abnormal about this. Just as people start car chases when cops yell at them, others run from the cops for little or no reason. If you've watched the TV show Cops, you've seen this hundreds of times. Dumb people always say "Why do they run when they only have an expired license or something minor?" The answer is because the stress response impairs their judgement.

Do you live in a cave? Have you never seen this and wondered whether there was a more rational explanation for their seemingly irrational behaviour?

Again, this is not abnormal. Decent law abiding people will act strangely and attempt to flee if confronted with such situations. This is a scientifically established fact – it's something the police know, and that these officers should have had in mind. Your whole argument falls flat on its face because of it.

Nice explanation of common circumstances. I guess that this is common knowledge for most special forces.

It is far more likely, given the probabilities, that this man was merely experiencing "fight or flight" than he was a suicide bomber. The police didn't have any real evidence at all that he was a bomber, just circumstantial. That's not even enough for an arrest. You can't just shoot people on such flimsy evidence, even if they do run away. The fact of the matter is that potential freakouts are much more numerous than potential suicide bombers. They got it into their heads that he was a suicide bomber based on bugger all, and then interpreted his actions as those of a criminal instead of what was more likely: a freaked out law abiding citizen experiencing an episode of extreme stress that forced him into fight or flight mode. Even if he was actually a suicide bomber, the police still didn't have enough evidence to shoot him. They acted rashly and prematurely, and now this man is dead for being a well clad Dago in a public place.

Please explain how those policemens should be able to distinguish between one fleeing because he was afraid because of his problematic paper situation and a person that was determined on blowing up as many people as possible. Not even your clever explanation of why people may run can give a clear distcintion between some person that runs for unreasonable reasons and some that run for a purpose.

Both of you have absolutely no case at all, and you've humiliated yourselves in this thread because of it.

It is clearly described above why this statement is pure BS.

[notyoueither]

You know, more Americans died in auto accidents that year. It's not such a big deal, yep, yep.

What a retarded argument.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by notyoueither

BTW, when did 'The Right to Ignore Police' get enshrined in our civil liberties, anyways?

the last time I checked, that is before this incident which you so absurdly defend, ignoring a Policeman was not death penalty offense

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's bizarre. They seem to want to give up the fundamental rule that governs policing in our countries: people cannot be arrested or manhandled without just cause.

Key phrase, 'just cause', learn it.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
So, the police should just ignore it then, yes?

I'm beginning to realise you aren't the sharpest pencil in the case.....

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

the last time I checked, that is before this incident which you so absurdly defend, ignoring a Policeman was not death penalty offense

And a cop won't be prosecuted for blowing you away when you keep your weapon after he has confronted you.

Your point?