Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Sense young children do not understand the concept of a lie, should child molesters who are accused of molesting a child below the age of 10, be legally concerted guilty and then be given a chance to prove their innocents?

Or

Should all child molesters be concerted, innocent before proven guilty, regardless of how persuasive the evidence is at the time of arrest?

No...

Innocent until proven guilty, no exceptions.

Originally posted by BackFire
No...

Innocent until proven guilty, no exceptions.

If someone finds a man having sex with a 8 year old girl, You are going to treat him with ' innocent till proven guilty crap" ???????????????

Well, in that unlikely scenario he already is blatantly guilty.

However, he still had to go through the courtsystem and have a trial to make his guilt valid, and until the trial is over, he must be technically innocent.

You can't pick and choose who is innocent until proven guilt and who is guilty by default, it's all or nothing.

Originally posted by fini
If someone finds a man having sex with a 8 year old girl, You are going to treat him with ' innocent till proven guilty crap" ???????????????

How many people in this world do you think could resist the impulse to beat the life out of someone caught in such a despicable act?

Answer: very few.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sense young children do not understand the concept of a lie, should child molesters who are accused of molesting a child below the age of 10, be legally concerted guilty and then be given a chance to prove their innocents?

Or

Should all child molesters be concerted, innocent before proven guilty, regardless of how persuasive the evidence is at the time of arrest?

its something they are considering here in britain...putting anyone who is arrested any kind of sex crime on the sex offenders register temporarily until the outcome of the trial

personally i find it a very slippery slope...as well as the idea to tell people in a community if a sex offender is housed nearby...this will only fuel vigilante actions despite the fact that the person will have served their sentence

well I guess by calling them them child molester you consider them guilty already

didnt we already have a thread on this like a week ago?

Originally posted by BackFire
Well, in that unlikely scenario he already is blatantly guilty.

However, he still had to go through the courtsystem and have a trial to make his guilt valid, and until the trial is over, he must be technically innocent.

You can't pick and choose who is innocent until proven guilt and who is guilty by default, it's all or nothing. Originally posted by jaden101
its something they are considering here in britain...putting anyone who is arrested any kind of sex crime on the sex offenders register temporarily until the outcome of the trial

personally i find it a very slippery slope...as well as the idea to tell people in a community if a sex offender is housed nearby...this will only fuel vigilante actions despite the fact that the person will have served their sentence And yet a man can be shot without trial if in the opinion of a police officer they look suspicious and could be a terrorist...

Originally posted by bilb
didnt we already have a thread on this like a week ago?

There was another thread, but I didn't think it cut to point of the issue, and was mostly off topic.

To the thread question euhm No, I'm pretty convinced a ten year old can be made to lie for his or her parents.

BF is right, if you make exceptions, your system can be manipulated

Innocent till proven guilty look at what happened in Cleveland UK based on poor psychologists, many innocent men on remand etc.

a child molester is someone who has molested a child so are the question for a former child molester or? if not they aint a child molester before they act upon it to gain that "title". And if someone have molested a child he /she is a child molester regardless if they are found guilty or not by the court....technicalities can free someone of charges even if they are the real perpetrator

Child molesters have patterns in their life that they follow....and personality traits also that can be detected....In my opinion....most children will not lie if they are with someone they truly trust and confide in...Also, the child will have a change in personality and behavior...

If I caught someone in the act....I'd kill them myself...probably go to jail for it also.....

Originally posted by BackFire
Well, in that unlikely scenario he already is blatantly guilty.

However, he still had to go through the courtsystem and have a trial to make his guilt valid, and until the trial is over, he must be technically innocent.

You can't pick and choose who is innocent until proven guilt and who is guilty by default, it's all or nothing. Originally posted by BackFire
No...

Innocent until proven guilty, no exceptions.

depends on how they were caught!!!! caught and brought in by evidence and suspicion or caught with their hand in the cookie jar

Originally posted by fini
If someone finds a man having sex with a 8 year old girl, You are going to treat him with ' innocent till proven guilty crap" ???????????????
#1 DUH! You catched him in the act. doh
#2 Thats rape........ doh

Innocent.

Everybody deserves a trial.

Originally posted by finti
depends on how they were caught!!!! caught and brought in by evidence and suspicion or caught with their hand in the cookie jar

Doesn't matter. Innocent until proven guilty, or else the system WILL be manipulated.

Originally posted by hotsauce6548
Innocent.

Everybody deserves a trial.
I hardly agree with the second statement, but innocent until proven guilty stands. There are times when it probably shouldn't, but that would compromise the entire system.

Because of so many technicalities....and previous things not allowed in court trials...I don't have true faith in the system, though I know we need it....BUT there is a difference in being accused and KNOWING it is true......

Of course not.

of course it matters if you get caught while robbing a bank the trial wont be whether you robed the bank or not but how long you gonna serve for robbing it

Originally posted by finti
of course it matters if you get caught while robbing a bank the trial wont be whether you robed the bank or not but how long you gonna serve for robbing it

Well but you are proven guilty then are you not? If you get caught molesting the child it is proven that you molested it....but if there is only evidence that you might have robbed the bank or molested the child you have to be treated innocent until you are proven guilty.

Originally posted by hotsauce6548
Innocent.

Everybody deserves a trial. Originally posted by Snoopbert
Doesn't matter. Innocent until proven guilty, or else the system WILL be manipulated. Originally posted by Bardock42
Well but you are proven guilty then are you not? If you get caught molesting the child it is proven that you molested it....but if there is only evidence that you might have robbed the bank or molested the child you have to be treated innocent until you are proven guilty. And yet a man can be shot if he is deemed suspicious enough by a police officer.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And yet a man can be shot if he is deemed suspicious enough by a police officer.

Sure why not.....not only bxy a policed officer by everyone....you have the right to protect yourself or another one if they are in iminent danger.

And you don't see the double standard...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And you don't see the double standard...
I do see what problem you might have with that......but it is a difference if some guy with a knife runs at you and probably tries to harm you or you arrested someone who now is no harm to anyone and you have the time to proof that he's guilty or not.

Plus if you actually shoot someone even if it was because you were in danger it will be investigated.

No...

The police has to act on an immediate threat, they can hardly call a judge ask if they are allowed to shoot then get the guy they want to shoot a lawyer and have a court meeting. If they can not arrest somebody then they should be allowed to shoot.

Originally posted by Fishy
No...

The police has to act on an immediate threat, they can hardly call a judge ask if they are allowed to shoot then get the guy they want to shoot a lawyer and have a court meeting. If they can not arrest somebody then they should be allowed to shoot.

True....but remember you have vigilante cops out there too....so, who's to supervise....OH.....video...

Everytime a cop shoots somebody here an investigation is launched... Ussually a shit load of media attention too. I don't know how it is in the US but over here if a cop shoots somebody and it wasn't necessary the cop is screwed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do see what problem you might have with that......but it is a difference if some guy with a knife runs at you and probably tries to harm you or you arrested someone who now is no harm to anyone and you have the time to proof that he's guilty or not.

Plus if you actually shoot someone even if it was because you were in danger it will be investigated. Originally posted by Fishy
No...

The police has to act on an immediate threat, they can hardly call a judge ask if they are allowed to shoot then get the guy they want to shoot a lawyer and have a court meeting. If they can not arrest somebody then they should be allowed to shoot. So in the scenario of a man caught in the act of trying to molest a child, the man should be allowed a trial. However a dark skinned man who decides to wear a thick jacket in summer should be shot in the head if the police officer is slightly suspicious of the man? And theirs no double standard in that at all?
Investigations don't bring people back to life.

Originally posted by Fishy
Everytime a cop shoots somebody here an investigation is launched... Ussually a shit load of media attention too. I don't know how it is in the US but over here if a cop shoots somebody and it wasn't necessary the cop is screwed.

Cops get a bad rap here too.....2 were thrown in prison because the man they were attempting to hold was high on coke....and was freaking out...they used quite a bit of force on him and he was black....so the racial card was played......

Originally posted by Fishy
Everytime a cop shoots somebody here an investigation is launched... Ussually a shit load of media attention too. I don't know how it is in the US but over here if a cop shoots somebody and it wasn't necessary the cop is screwed.

Exactly my point...it'ws not just "shot-dead-and ok" it is a big thing........but often the only possible way...if not the Cop will be punished.......(but again innocent until proven guilty)

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So in the scenario of a man caught in the act of trying to molest a child, the man should be allowed a trial. However a dark skinned man who decides to wear a thick jacket in summer should be shot in the head if the police officer is slightly suspicious of the man? And theirs no double standard in that at all?
Investigations don't bring people back to life.

There is a no double standard in the syste at last, because if the cop shoots a man who was slightly suspicious he will face trial lose his job and most likely stay in jail for a long ass time...if there is a double standard in your country...I don't know ...but the system works out just fine.

As for the "Investigations don'T...." no they don't but it is not justofied to kill the person so they will be treated like every other murderer the second they are proven guilty.

No double standard....
I've seen the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty." used by you and every other person on this thread. Yet when this scenario arises the person is treated as guilty until proven innocent by subsequent inquest.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
No double standard....
I've seen the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty." used by you and every other person on this thread. Yet when this scenario arises the person is treated as guilty until proven innocent by subsequent inquest.

If a cop thinks he needs to shoot that person he can shoot that person he has a gun and he is allowed to use it. However if he shot the person without a damn good reason he's going to jail. If he shot that person without a damn good reason he becomes a murderer its that simple. There is no double standard, he gets punished if he was wrong he doesn't get punished if he was right. But he's only right when the guy can kill other people. If the criminal has a bomb then the cop is allowed to shoot if the criminal points a gun on the cops head then yeah sure the cop can shoot, but unless something like that happens the cop can't shoot and he will be trialed for doing so.

Whats the double standard?

The double standard is that the person being shot isn't afforded the "innocent until proven guilty" that the child molester is.

No, but thats because they had no choice. Look if the child molestor is about to put his penis into the little girl and a cop jumps in tells him to stop but he moves forward then the cop is damn well allowed to shoot.

A cop should be allowed to shoot a terrorist thats planting a bomb.
However once the bomb has already gone off he shouldn't shoot the guy anymore he should arrest and put him into trial.

The thing is, you can't preven the crime from happening anymore with the child molestor, so you have to put him to trial. You can stop the crime from happening in other situatiosn so yeah the cop should be allowed to shoot. An investigation will show if he was right or not, if not he's screwed. But he has to make a choice, he can't wait until the crime has already happened then arrest the guy and then put him to trial. Its better to shoot the criminal and try to prevent it.

I thought the scenario was a man about to molest a child?

If he's caught just before or while commiting the crime and he doesn't stop after a warning then the cop is damn well allowed to shoot the guy. No doubt about that in my mind, an investigation will happen and see if he had the right to shoot the guy or not, they will say yes because it pretty much saved somebody so everything is fine.

However if the cop didn't save anybody by shooting the guy then what he did was just plain wrong.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
No double standard....
I've seen the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty." used by you and every other person on this thread. Yet when this scenario arises the person is treated as guilty until proven innocent by subsequent inquest.

No it is not....not by the state at least...there is a double standard the state has to keep to the "innocent.......", but a single person doesn't because they have to look out for themself.

Here is a what if for you; What if a man caught another man molesting a child and the molester jumped out the window. The man tries to comfort the traumatized child or give the child medical aid, and then someone else comes in and accuses the man of the crime. If the child is not able to clear the men, then it can seem that the wrong person was accused. I had a hard time wording this but I hope you get the point. You always have to have a trile even if all of the evidence points to the accused. See the movie the green mile.

point is they aint no bankrobber or child molester then, that label are for those who are found guilty

Quite simply, NOBODY should be considered guilty before they have been proved guilty. Otherwise, there is no point in them going to court

And yet somehow a shoot-to-kill policy isn't inconsistent with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Originally posted by fini
If someone finds a man having sex with a 8 year old girl, You are going to treat him with ' innocent till proven guilty crap" ???????????????

Well if you put it that way.

Well, if you catch him doing it, then that IS proof of him being guilty

No because then everyone would run around calling everyone else a child molester, and they'd all have to time-wastingly be proven innocent.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And yet somehow a shoot-to-kill policy isn't inconsistent with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?

That's not the point - prevention of a crime is dfferent to punishment for a crime. After a crime is commited, a person is assumed innocent until proven guilty whilst on trial for their punishment (if guilty).

However, in order to prevent a crime, the state is within its rights to detain or stop anybody who appears suspicous. Of course, the state must also have a good reason to arrest somebody ,and definately to shoot them - the situation you keep referring to, the man ran from the police - who were already highly strung due to the bombs - and so they assumed he was guilty. After all, why run?

If he had simply surrendered himself to the police, then he would have been cleared of any charges - innocent until proven guilty.

Actually I haven't been referring to that example in particular but if we are going to refer to it then you should realise the interpretation of that situation you've just given is outdated.
BBC News
Initial witness reports suggested he was wearing a thick, padded jacket, despite the warm weather. And police said soon after the shooting that the dead man's clothing and behaviour had added to their suspicions.

Yet documents and photographs at the scene suggest he was wearing a blue denim jacket or shirt.

Mr Menezes, still being followed, got off the bus in Stockwell Road, a short walk from the Tube station.

He crossed Clapham Road and entered the station at about 1000, stopping to pick up a copy of the free Metro newspaper before passing through the automatic ticket barriers, using his Underground pass.

At least one witness initially said he saw the man vaulting the barriers. But he later acknowledged that it could have been one of the pursuing officers.

By this time, officers had received "positive identification" that Mr Menezes was their suspect, according to the leaked papers.

He began travelling down the escalator towards the northbound Northern Line platform, and at some point began running towards the train. Originally, this was interpreted by witnesses (and not dismissed by police) as an attempt to escape the pursuing officers.

But the documents suggest it might have been because he heard or spotted a train arriving at the platform.
Mr Menezes entered a carriage of a northbound Northern Line train and sat on a seat facing the platform.

The leaked documents suggest a surveillance officer, codenamed Hotel 3, followed him on to the train and sat a few seats away. According to his account, there were other members of the surveillance team near the open doors.

"Hotel 3" reportedly got up and held the doors open for armed officers whom he spotted on the platform.

He said in his statement that he heard shouting - including the word "police" - before Mr Menezes stood up and advanced towards him and the armed police.

The officer said he grabbed the man, wrapping his arms around him and pinning his arms to his side. He pushed the man back into his seat and heard the first of the gun shots, according to the leaked statement.

Police told the coroner Mr Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder. The documents said three other bullets had missed him.

Originally posted by fini
If someone finds a man having sex with a 8 year old girl, You are going to treat him with ' innocent till proven guilty crap" ???????????????

Of course.......I guess it won't take long to find him guilty butin general yes.......what do you sugggest.....torture him a little before trial?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Actually I haven't been referring to that example in particular but if we are going to refer to it then you should realise the interpretation of that situation you've just given is outdated.

But that's just a stupid example....the system never said this was ok...and if it would be a non-corrupted system the shooters would face a trial for murder as any other person that shot someone........but they too would be innocent until proven guilty.

Your example...as sad as you might think it is, has nothing to do with the case in any way.

I didn't bring up the example. However there is an intrinsic inconsistency in vehemently supporting the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty." and yet allowing police officers the discretion to effectively punish people (with what amounts to a death sentence) for crimes uncommitted on the basis of pure suspicion.
The example is in fact a valid one, from what is currently known, it amounts to the summary extrajudicial execution of an innocent man within the "system" you love to refer to, at the time, but not in retrospect.

why not

Originally posted by finti
why not

I am not sure how to answer that, going by my understanding of morals I'd agree with you, but by the ones I made for myself I can just say, are you serious?.....why torture them before they are found guilty (or what if they are not?)

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I didn't bring up the example. However there is an intrinsic inconsistency in vehemently supporting the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty." and yet allowing police officers the discretion to effectively punish people (with what amounts to a death sentence) for crimes uncommitted on the basis of pure suspicion.
The example is in fact a valid one, from what is currently known, it amounts to the summary extrajudicial execution of an innocent man within the "system" you love to refer to, at the time, but not in retrospect.

It just is a whole different thiong, it'S like I am saying apples are red but you answer isn't there an inconsistency since bananas are yellow.

It is a whole different thing, the government say "every person is innocent until proven guilty".
In a second sentence the government say, "If a police officer is in danger he has the righjt to protect his life"

That are two different things, the government doesn't say treat the suspect as guiltxy but it says if you are in danger you have the same right every other human being in this world has, you are allowed to protect yourself. If you don't see that first this doesn't have anthing tod do with the other law and second that it is important and rightly put in the law code then I don't know what's wrong with you.

Not to forget that the government puts in a third law that even keeps the second balanced, "Every usage odf the second law will lead to an investigation and if unjustly used to a trial"

Originally posted by Bardock42
It just is a whole different thiong, it'S like I am saying apples are red but you answer isn't there an inconsistency since bananas are yellow.That's the worst analogy I've ever heard.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It is a whole different thing, the government say "every person is innocent until proven guilty".
In a second sentence the government say, "If a police officer is in danger he has the righjt to protect his life"

That are two different things, the government doesn't say treat the suspect as guiltxy but it says if you are in danger you have the same right every other human being in this world has, you are allowed to protect yourself. If you don't see that first this doesn't have anthing tod do with the other law and second that it is important and rightly put in the law code then I don't know what's wrong with you.

Not to forget that the government puts in a third law that even keeps the second balanced, "Every usage odf the second law will lead to an investigation and if unjustly used to a trial" The government instruct the police force that people are to be considered innocent until proven guilty in the judicial system. However the government allows the police force the discretion to employ extrajudicial execution on pure suspicion. I have no problem with people supporting a shoot-to-kill policy, but to not acknowledge that it both contravenes and erodes the legal concept of "Innocent until proven guilty." is delusion as it allows for pre-emptive punishment for crimes as yet uncommitted, and as the case of Mr. Menezes shows may never be committed. "If you don't see that then I don't know what's wrong with you."

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That's the worst analogy I've ever heard.
The government instruct the police force that people are to be considered innocent until proven guilty in the judicial system. However the government allows the police force the discretion to employ extrajudicial execution on pure suspicion. I have no problem with people supporting a shoot-to-kill policy, but to not acknowledge that it both contravenes and erodes the legal concept of "Innocent until proven guilty." is delusion as it allows for pre-emptive punishment for crimes as yet uncommitted, and as the case of Mr. Menezes shows may never be committed. "If you don't see that then I don't know what's wrong with you."

Well you arguement is the worst I have ever heard......hard to make something of it.


No it doesn't...it fdoesn't say yo guys you shoot them if they nbehave suspicious....they say you can guard your life because you are a huan and every human has the right to protect themself.

Now if the cops wopn't get opunished this is not the fault of the system because the system makes clear that they have to be punished....I am sorry if you live in a country where the system is corrupted but youi can't blame it for that really.

I am not supporting a "Police officers are allowed to shoot people that behave suspicious" - policy, but a "If you or another huan is in real danger you are allowed to protect yourself and them.....not because you are an officer and the law around here but because human decency allows you not to put yourself at such a high risk" .......I see that your arguement is logical but it is based on the wrong assumptions and therefore just wrong as a whoel.

The shoot-to-kill policy grants police officers with authority to enact what is effectively a death sentence without judicial proceedings. That amounts to extrajudicial execution - whether or not you accept that.
Extrajudicial - Outside of the usual judicial proceedings.
Execution - The act or an instance of putting to death.
Whether or not a person is suspicious enough to warrant use of the powers granted by a shoot-to-kill policy is at the discretion of the police officer. That contravenes and erodes the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" which is a fundamental foundation in the judicial system. The shoot-to-kill policy contravenes several legal rights.

I don't know why you keep referring to whether or not a subsequent inquiry is made into whether the police officer was justified. This has nothing to do with corrupt systems. That is completely irrelevant to whether a shoot-to-kill policy contravenes the fact that someone is to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

talking about child molesters caught red handed........

These reallyare two different topics you know....the shoot to kill and the proven guilty thing...

Originally posted by finti
talking about child molesters caught red handed........
Yes i know....what difference do two onths of trial make...epecially since finding them guilty won't be a big deal if that actually happened.

Originally posted by debbiejo
These reallyare two different topics you know....the shoot to kill and the proven guilty thing...

thanks debbieOriginally posted by xmarksthespot
The shoot-to-kill policy grants police officers with authority to enact what is effectively a death sentence without judicial proceedings. That amounts to extrajudicial execution - whether or not you accept that.
Extrajudicial - Outside of the usual judicial proceedings.
Execution - The act or an instance of putting to death.
Whether or not a person is suspicious enough to warrant use of the powers granted by a shoot-to-kill policy is at the discretion of the police officer. That contravenes and erodes the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" which is a fundamental foundation in the judicial system. The shoot-to-kill policy contravenes several legal rights.

I don't know why you keep referring to whether or not a subsequent inquiry is made into whether the police officer was justified. This has nothing to do with corrupt systems. That is completely irrelevant to whether a shoot-to-kill policy contravenes the fact that someone is to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

No, it does not. It is not a allowance to execute a suspect, in no way. You misunderstand the meaning. And in fact it is not something that is granted to Police Officers exclusively. Everyone has the right, the law just states you are allowed to use that right. Again, the shoottokill-policy as you call it is not actually a real piolicy, it is not liek the Government say that cops are allowed to shoot and kill a bank robber just for the jheck of it...to compare it with an execution is flawed logic. Inn fact you have the same right....if soeone charges at you with a gun or a knive in their hand you are allowed to use a gun and ever shoot the attacker to protect you. It is a right every Human has by the government. It's not like it'S something special........


I am not saying that it has any relevance to the topic, what I am saying is that you might have a bad idea aboot that policy because it isn't worked right at sometimes, take the case you stated. That was in no way justified and according to the system they would be put to trial. If that didn't happen it's not the systems fault but the fault of people that for some reason altered the system to free them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it does not. It is not a allowance to execute a suspect, in no way. You misunderstand the meaning. And in fact it is not something that is granted to Police Officers exclusively. Everyone has the right, the law just states you are allowed to use that right. Again, the shoottokill-policy as you call it is not actually a real piolicy, it is not liek the Government say that cops are allowed to shoot and kill a bank robber just for the jheck of it...to compare it with an execution is flawed logic. Inn fact you have the same right....if soeone charges at you with a gun or a knive in their hand you are allowed to use a gun and ever shoot the attacker to protect you. It is a right every Human has by the government. It's not like it'S something special........
I am not saying that it has any relevance to the topic, what I am saying is that you might have a bad idea aboot that policy because it isn't worked right at sometimes, take the case you stated. That was in no way justified and according to the system they would be put to trial. If that didn't happen it's not the systems fault but the fault of people that for some reason altered the system to free them. I am referring specifically to the policy of the U.K. when I use the term "shoot-to-kill policy" which allows for what is effectively extrajudicial execution at the discretion of the police officer. In the case described the act of shooting Mr. Menezes was within the powers granted "by the system" at the time, and falls within the shoot-to-kill policy as the policy puts such a decision at the discretion of the officer. However in hindsight the shooting was not apparently justified - as the man was in fact an innocent man with no connections to terrorism.

But what if the protection of harm requires extrajudicial execution... that's where grey areas start to develop.
I simply think that one must acknowledge that any "shoot-to-kill" policy, in which police officers are given the powers to use lethal action as the primary action, does in fact contravene the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" even if one does support such a policy and think it may be necessary. Failure to acknowledge this is imo dangerous to the very concept of "innocent until proven guilty".

There now I have to disagree.
It is not a policy to use lethal action as primary action...it is a rule that gives police officers the freedom to use their rights as citizens although being governent officials.

-Every Citizen has the right to protect themself
-The legal System has a rule that a suspect has to be treated as innocent until proven otherwise
-The policy lets police officers take their right as human citizensd and put their own safety before the dry rules of the Judicial System.


Besides that Police Officers are not a part of the Judicial Branch but of the Executive......

Again by "shoot-to-kill" I only mean any specific policy that allows for lethal action as primary action contravenes innocent until proven guilty.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Again by "shoot-to-kill" I only mean any specific policy that allows for lethal action as primary action contravenes innocent until proven guilty.

Again I agree if you go by the definition of this shoot-to-kill policy....but I alsop have to state that I never came across such a policy and am quite suprised that a civilizesd country like England should have one.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again I agree if you go by the definition of this shoot-to-kill policy....but I alsop have to state that I never came across such a policy and am quite suprised that a civilizesd country like England should have one. I'd argue that it may be necessary in the face of terrorism however it must be tempered with the acknowledgement that this entails a fundamental shift from the underlying foundation of the judicial system that people are to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

I argue that as what you describe it it is against the law and a way authoritarian almost fascist way to lead government.

There is no reason for such actions......killing another person without former trial is only justified in cases of real danger to oneself or another being.....

Yes well the decision of whether there is danger or not is at the discretion of the police officer. It can be argued that to act with lethal action without conclusive evidence of a forthcoming crime is illegal however if they do not act then lives could be lost. The decision to kill is entirely at the discretion of the police officer and as such innocent people can potentially be shot and killed based on suspicion or circumstance. It's a very murky grey area.

Well not really.....it indeed is in the measurement of the Officer but he can be Judged for extree deeds too....like killing someoine without real suspicion or taking to hard steps (killing instead of wounding) ....the idea actually is that the life of the victims is more precious than the life of the aggressor...but tha doesn#t mean that it is worth nothing.....and with the Case you stated it wobviously were radivcal and unjustified acts of violence.......the police officer will have to be punished.

They are different situations.

The police wouldn't shoot someone that was about to 'insert his penis' into someone, as previously suggested. There would be lots of non-lethal options open to them.

The reason that innocent until proven guilty is necessary is because EVERYONE is guilty or innocent-before the trial takes place. Someone always knows which it is- that's not the point. I could see a crime going on- I know the person is guilty, but it's not my place to say that, I can merely provide evidence to the official sources.

'Shoot to kill' is not as instance of guilty before proven innocent. The police will always act to prevent a crime, or to take someone into custody to question them, in order to put them through the system.

In this case, the action is used when it is the last resort to prevent the death of others. It is self-defence- as stated above, the option is open to all of us. The police cannot use this power on a mere suspicion, it should be more or less a last resort.

In the Menezes case, the professionalism of the police came into question, and in that case it was rightfully so. It was a tragedy, but it was also a freak occurrence.

The only real issues that come out of it is how tight are the controls on this policy; how well trained are the people allowed to administer it; what constitutes a serious threat requiring the policy to be used.

If it were truly a policy of 'kill anyone of whom that particular officer is suspicious', then there would be a massive double standard.

if ur sick enough to stick ur shitstick in a little kid u should be guilty

As much as I hate to say it..innocent UNTIL found guilty...then once we decided there guilty we should take them out back beat the ever living crap out of them,watch them get gang raped then use them as charcoal.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
As much as I hate to say it..innocent UNTIL found guilty...then once we decided there guilty we should take them out back beat the ever living crap out of them,watch them get gang raped then use them as charcoal.
It's a shame you're married.

Hey I got it made. XD


Should we tape it or just take picture's?

These ****ers have it to easy in jail,the judicial system is all ****ed up really.They set in prison for 4 -12 years ,average range in Texas/Oklahoma , with cable TV three meals a day ..they have it better in prison then they did on the streets.-_-" Im telling you we should just take them out back and get justice the good old fashion way.

SpellJammer supports that because it would be cheaper and help the economy.

He offered to strand them on an island where they'd have to work to survive, but would not be killed to settle the left's nerves but they treated him like he was retarded for the idea, so screw them, kill them and gather thier blood so you can spill it on the liberal's and point and laugh.. self-rightouss bastards..

Amen to that.