?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Orwellian - Eroticdreambattle — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tony Grist

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Orwellian [Jul. 25th, 2005|06:02 pm]
Tony Grist
Some politician was saying we've got the terminology wrong.

We shouldn't say "shoot to kill"; we should say "shoot to protect".

Of course, that makes all the difference.

Now lets think of a nice way of saying "innocent man with five bullets in his head."
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: mummm
2005-07-25 10:15 am (UTC)
I guess we have to think of it as 60+ innocents dead and 200+ injured and a guy who would not stop when told to do so?

Seriously... it's AWFUL but your police (Bobbies? They no longer just carry nightsticks huh?) have my sympathy! Five shots were a bit much though... and maybe they could have aimed to injure?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2005-07-25 11:11 am (UTC)
I don't know the rights and wrongs of it. Maybe the police did what they had to do. It's the massaging of language that gets me.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mummm
2005-07-25 11:42 am (UTC)
Ah... true!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: halfmoon_mollie
2005-07-25 10:16 am (UTC)
okay, I don't necessarily agree with what happened BUT -
you know he was continually told to STOP. Now, if I'm in a country where there has just been a terrorist attack, and the police tell me to stop, not only do I stop but I put my hands over my head and make sure they know I've stopped.

You can't have it both ways. Yes, he was an innocent man. But doing what he did, did not make him look innocent. How were the police supposed to know he was innocent?

Hm?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2005-07-25 11:16 am (UTC)
I think the police probably did what it says in the rule-book- and that the officer who fired the shots is going to be traumatised for life. I don't so much object to the policy as to the attempt by politicians to make a hideous situation more acceptable by prettifying the language around it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: halfmoon_mollie
2005-07-25 01:08 pm (UTC)
I don't so much object to the policy as to the attempt by politicians to make a hideous situation more acceptable by prettifying the language around it.

Okay, I'll buy that. And I agree, the poor police officer...he did what he thought was right.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2005-07-25 02:13 pm (UTC)
There'll be an inquiry. The police officers involved already gave statements.

We're learning now that the victim was shot once in the shoulder and seven times in the head.

Why seven times?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: arielstarshadow
2005-07-25 11:17 am (UTC)
True enough.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: pickwick
2005-07-26 02:09 am (UTC)
What about if you're in a country where there's just been a terrorist attack, and a bunch of guys in scruffy clothes follow you for 20 minutes saying nothing, then pull AK47s and start shouting at you?

I don't think running is a ridiculous thing to do at that point.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: pickwick
2005-07-26 02:10 am (UTC)
And yes - if the police think you don't look innocent, of course they have every right to shoot you eight times in the head.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: shewhomust
2005-07-25 10:29 am (UTC)
Now let's think of a nice way of saying "innocent man with five bullets in his head."

That'd be "brown-skinned man living in the same block of flats as someone we are suspicious of", wouldn't it?

We've talked about this all weekend, and as long as the police had reason to think they might be dealing with a suicide bomber, you can see why they reacted as they did; but when you learn how little reason they did have - well, it's hard not to conclude they shot a man for having the wrong colour skin, isn't it?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2005-07-25 11:21 am (UTC)
Hard questions need to be asked.

Like what evidence did they have?

And why wasn't he challenged earlier?

And yes, I think race comes into it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: arielstarshadow
2005-07-25 11:16 am (UTC)
"Oops?"
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2005-07-25 11:25 am (UTC)
We're in a very ugly situation and ugly things have happened and will continue to happen- I just hate the way politicians want to put a rosy spin on things.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lblanchard
2005-07-25 12:15 pm (UTC)
I take your point about Orwellian.

I haven't been following the eyewitness reports on this very closely, except to note the sound-bite about the deceased looking "like a cornered fox."

But does it appear to be true that he didn't respond to several orders to stop? If so, I wonder what the back-story is -- maybe he didn't speak English. Maybe he had bad experiences being unfairly roughed up in Brazil. Maybe he had done something else illegal and didn't want to get caught.

Assuming he refused repeated orders to stop, I would have to say the fatal lesson for the rest of us to learn here is that it's unhealthy to act like a fugitive when the police are armed and nervous.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2005-07-25 12:36 pm (UTC)
They're saying he was here on a student visa and it had run out and that was why he ran from the police.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lblanchard
2005-07-25 01:18 pm (UTC)
Yes. I bbc'd the issue right after commenting and saw that. The family is denying it.

It's a scary place for the police to be. "You have a nanosecond. Is this a terrified illegal alien or a suicide bomber? Guess wrong and you're screwed."

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2005-07-25 02:16 pm (UTC)
We're learning, I think, to mistrust the media.

It's one of the drawbacks of the kind of rolling news coverage we now enjoy. Facts get reported without being checked and much of what we're told
turns out to be untrue.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cybersofa
2005-07-25 01:06 pm (UTC)
My personal spin on this is that he was the 53rd innocent victim of the murderous attacks on 7th July.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2005-07-25 02:10 pm (UTC)
One thing leads to another.

Yup, I won't quarrel with that.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: craftyailz
2005-07-26 01:28 am (UTC)
On the tv the other day they were talking about Stockwell as a really rough area. Apparently the policeman wasn't in uniform and it was said that if someone approached (the newsguys) waving a gun, even if they shouted police, they wouldn't believe them and would run.

Also, apparently, it is now 8 shots - this was a guy who had tripped getting on a train and was lying sprawled on the floor - arms away from his body - they could have just stood on his hands. Apparently they shot him because they thought his jacket was too thick for the weather - not as warm as in Brazil I reckon.
(Reply) (Thread)