Should child molesters be considered guilty before proven innocent?

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.

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?)

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........

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

thanks debbie

Originally 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.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
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.

Now if that is allowed by your countries system...I have to agree there is something wrong with it......I am not really knowledgable aboot British Law but if it is that way I have to agree with you that is wrong.....and actually a fascist law. I see a contradiction there but there is no contradiction ín a system as I belief Germany has and the US had (who knows with Patriot act) .....German police is not auithorised to Execute anyone...they are allowed to protect themself or fellow humans from harm...no more no less.

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 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.

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..