Were the London Police Justified in Killing Jean Charles de Menezes?

[Pangloss]

Were the London Police Justified in Killing Jean Charles de Menezes?

[atinymonkey]

Thats a loaded question, and rather unfair.

[the tree]

This is already being discussed, I don't really see the point in another thread.

[ku]

I think essentially this is one of those individual versus society issues, whether the welfare and rights of the individual is more important than the rights and welfare of society as a whole.

 

In America, for example, the focus tends to be on individual rights, which is illustrated in the Western legal system and the concept of guilty before proven innocent--it is better for ten guilty people to walk free than for one innocent person to be found guilty.

 

In more collectivist cultures, however, it is right for the individual to sacrifice himself for the good of society. Many communist countries were like this. Many Muslim-dense countries are like this as well.

[Pangloss]

It isn't a thread, it's a poll. If there's a way to attach a poll to an existing thread, or cut off posts in a poll thread, please tell me.

[skuinders]

To approach this without emotion:

If the probability that a given man is a bomber is sufficiently high (given appearance, demeanor, positive ID, etc.), he should be killed simply based on the likelihood that x lives might be lost if no action is taken. If this situation occurs multiple times, the ratio of correct assessments to incorrect ones made by the police should be taken into account and future action should be adjusted appropriately. So, really the question is: can the police effectively measure the relevant probability/threat level?

[Pangloss]

Right, but I would insert the clause "... on an individual-policeman level..." near the end of your question, just to underscore the point of what we're actually suggesting here (which seems to me to be virtually impossible).

 

Even the *Israelis* don't do this.

[skuinders]

Indeed... no one is thinking about probabilities when they are chasing a dubious character around with a gun; there is not even an agreeable way to calculate a probability in that situation. The only objective way to act in or analyze such an event is in a manner such as I mentioned, and that is simply not feasible. That was my point with the last sentence... although, I suppose I could have made that a bit clearer.

[In My Memory]

Atinymonkey,

 

Thats a loaded question, and rather unfair.

What makes it a loaded question? And how would you rephrase it to make it neutral?

[atinymonkey]

The Police are not instruments of Justice, and there is no death penalty in the British legal system. This makes the obvious answer 'no'. Including the victims name also swings the bias in the Jean Charles favour. I'm not sure how I'd phrase it, each time I try it's not balanced.

[Pangloss]

The Police are not instruments of Justice, and there is no death penalty in the British legal system. This makes the obvious answer 'no'.

 

And yet, Jean Charles de Menezes, who was not a terrorist, is dead. No, you don't have a death penalty. You just have procedures that can result in death when mistakes are made. What exactly is the difference between a UK policeman mistaking a citizen for a terrorist, and a US jury sentencing an innocent man to die? I don't know, but it sure seems like a valid comparison to me.

 

That may ultimately be the price that has to be paid for freedom, I don't know. I am hopeful, however, that more realistic restrictions will either be discovered or put into place about that policy.

[YT2095]

No' date=' you don't have a death penalty. You just have procedures that can result in death when mistakes are made. What exactly is the difference between a UK policeman mistaking a citizen for a terrorist, and a US jury sentencing an innocent man to die? I don't know, but it sure seems like a valid comparison to me.

[/quote']

 

what Complete and Utter garbage!!!!

 

one takes a split second for this "Mistake" as you admit to yourself, whereas the other can be wrapped up for YEARS in litigation and stays, there`s a MASSIVE difference, and if you can`t see that, well basicly you`ve no right to even be presenting an opinion, nevermind trying to get anyone to concur!

 

you`ve disappointed me (and yourself there).

[Pangloss]

I'm sorry to hear you say that, but I think you've lost your perspective (not to mention your composure) and should take a step back from the keyboard before commenting further on the issue.

 

I'm an opponent of the death penalty, and I dislike the fact that Britain appears to be going through some of the same flawed reasoning that put my country in the place where it is on this. That doesn't mean I don't respect or admire your tenacity and stalwart determination to deal with the problem.

 

Relax. Unlike some people around here, I'm not trying to piss anyone off. I'm just trying to point out a few logical flaws that I believe are being made under the current blinders of extreme national duress.

[YT2095]

a Mistake was made granted, it was a mistake that was ALSO unavoidable with the circumstances given.

agreed, it was and is wholey regretable, however the only person that Could have changed it is not here anymore, I`de give you odds that given a second time around when he heard "Police!!! STOP WHERE YOU ARE!" or whatever, he would have done so!

 

as for your other point (somewhat off-Topic) I also am against the death penalty, it`s a waste of valuable resources.

[atinymonkey]

And yet' date=' Jean Charles de Menezes, who was not a terrorist, is dead. No, you don't have a death penalty. You just have procedures that can result in death when mistakes are made. What exactly is the difference between a UK policeman mistaking a citizen for a terrorist, and a US jury sentencing an innocent man to die? I don't know, but it sure seems like a valid comparison to me.

 

That may ultimately be the price that has to be paid for freedom, I don't know. I am hopeful, however, that more realistic restrictions will either be discovered or put into place about that policy.[/quote']

I agree. It's a God awful situation. It highlights that much of what we have achieved is very fragile. London has been put into a situation where taking the life of a person was preferable to allowing the risk to continue. That is deplorable.

 

I suppose we can watch to see the outcome of this*. Perhaps it will limit peoples reactions in the future, and temper the authorities latent anger at the situation. It helps to remind us all that in any war, even one on terror, there are innocents killed on both sides. If the victim had been connected to the bombings we could have carried on in our righteousness, and been oblivious to consequences.

 

*Edit, looking at your new thread - The latest suspect that was arrested resisted the police, and a tazer was used to subdue him. That looks like a lesson learnt to me.

[ku]

To approach this without emotion:

If the probability that a given man is a bomber is sufficiently high (given appearance' date=' demeanor, positive ID, etc.), he should be killed simply based on the likelihood that [i']x[/i] lives might be lost if no action is taken. If this situation occurs multiple times, the ratio of correct assessments to incorrect ones made by the police should be taken into account and future action should be adjusted appropriately. So, really the question is: can the police effectively measure the relevant probability/threat level?

Remember that this quantitative attitude to what is good for society is what motivated the advancement of communism.

 

Do you think that maybe using different categories and situations the same person can be foung worthy and unworthy of death by two different people. For example, one suspect is analysed by scientist A who, based on the suspect's hair color, height, and clothing, is deemed a threat, but scientist B looking at the same suspect uses different categories, e.g. chest width, body-mass index, and lip size, and comes up with different probabilities.

[ku]

A number of people here count lives probably lost if the police had not have shot and compare this to lives probably lost if the police had not have shot. But should number of lives be the unit of measurement we try to optimize, or should overall satisfaction be the correct unit?

 

Satisfaction may be a function of individual freedom. For example, government using its power and its monopoly on coercion can create a crimeless world by locking every citizen up in cells, feeding them through tubes, and distracting them with TV. Crime would almost be zero but satisfaction may be low. If prisoners have no way to comparing their lives to any other people's lives--no point of reference or whatever--then satisfaction may be high, but what most people would find objectionable is each citizen's lack of freedom. Their whole lives are dictated by the state, by the calculations of elitisits of what is good for them.

[Glider]

What exactly is the difference between a UK policeman mistaking a citizen for a terrorist, and a US jury sentencing an innocent man to die? I don't know, but it sure seems like a valid comparison to me.

I'd have to disagree. The most obvious difference is time. In court, the case can take many weeks, even months of argumant, counter-argument debate and deliberation. On the street, decisions are made in seconds, by many fewer people, who are in possession of often flawed evidence and who are driven by their interpretation of it within the current context. They are functioning on what they believe to be the case, rather than any detailed weighing up of carefully collected evidence.

 

That may ultimately be the price that has to be paid for freedom, I don't know. I am hopeful, however, that more realistic restrictions will either be discovered or put into place about that policy.

I hope so too.

[Skye]

What exactly is the difference between a UK policeman mistaking a citizen for a terrorist, and a US jury sentencing an innocent man to die?

One is before, and the other is after, the fact. In the former it is a matter of prevention, in the latter it is a matter of justice. I'd personally prefer to risk innocent people dying if it is aimed at preventing murder, rather than to atone for a murder.

[john5746]

And yet, Jean Charles de Menezes, who was not a terrorist, is dead. No, you don't have a death penalty. You just have procedures that can result in death when mistakes are made. What exactly is the difference between a UK policeman mistaking a citizen for a terrorist, and a US jury sentencing an innocent man to die? I don't know, but it sure seems like a valid comparison to me.

 

Skye hit on this one above. One case is self-defense, the other is punishment. I am for the death penalty though*. That is one good thing about suicide bombers, we don't have to take care of them in court and jail.

 

* if it were more economical than taking care of the criminal, hence the wasting resource idea.

 

That may ultimately be the price that has to be paid for freedom' date=' I don't know. I am hopeful, however, that more realistic restrictions will either be discovered or put into place about that policy.[/quote']

 

Yep, freedom isn't free unfortunately. It sounds like the police have reviewed it and are using different measures currently. This doesn't mean mistakes won't be made in the future. Innocent people die everyday from car chases, etc. This doesn't mean its the police fault and they should never chase anyone. They just need to have reasonable cause and try to be smart about it.

[skuinders]

Do you think that maybe using different categories and situations the same person can be foung worthy and unworthy of death by two different people. For example, one suspect is analysed by scientist A who, based on the suspect's hair color, height, and clothing, is deemed a threat, but scientist B looking at the same suspect uses different categories, e.g. chest width, body-mass index, and lip size, and comes up with different probabilities.

Right. You might want to look at my second post.

Indeed... no one is thinking about probabilities when they are chasing a dubious character around with a gun; there is not even an agreeable way to calculate a probability in that situation. The only objective way to act in or analyze such an event is in a manner such as I mentioned, and that is simply not feasible[/b']. That was my point with the last sentence... although, I suppose I could have made that a bit clearer.

[atinymonkey]

Right. You might want to look at my second post.

Right. That clears it all up. I'll let Police know that they can pack it up and go home, because your five minutes thought on the matter proves beyond dispute that it's impossible for a Policeman to make a decision.

[VikingF]

Were the London Police Justified in Killing Jean Charles de Menezes?

 

 

I'm very sorry to say, but "yes", the London Police had no other choice than to shoot him. In these days, it's dangerous to act like a bomber in London, and the police cannot take the chance and let a possible bomber kill more people. In that situation, they had to react rapidly.

I don't think for instance NYPD would have solved the situation another way.

 

 

Jean Charles de Menezes

R.I.P.

[-Demosthenes-]

I also am against the death penalty, it`s a waste of valuable resources.

I'd be rather uneasy to base weather someone lives or dies on which way uses less resources...

[atinymonkey]

I think YT is referring to his persistent psychosis of using prisoners for 'medical research': -

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=134755