ChatterBank0 min ago
What is Innocent ?
In the past week we have heard the words . " Innocent unarmed civilians ", but what do we mean by the word Innocent. Barely a week goes past without unarmed protesters somewhere turn violent. Are they innocent just because they are not carrying arms. ?
Please don't quote N Ire. that has been flogged to death.
I'm thinking of the way the word Innocent is used after violence breaks out anywhere .
Please don't quote N Ire. that has been flogged to death.
I'm thinking of the way the word Innocent is used after violence breaks out anywhere .
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ian Tomlinson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Tomlinson
We are all innocent until the police assault us, then we are rioters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Tomlinson
We are all innocent until the police assault us, then we are rioters.
It seems we are innocent until we are proven guilty
It seems we are innocent when we are free of evil or sin - but who is without sin ?
It would seem protestors are innocent of violence when they have in no way been violent or complicit in violence ?
Again, it can all be a bit subjective - one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter
Can a freedom fighter be viewed as innocent ?
It seems we are innocent when we are free of evil or sin - but who is without sin ?
It would seem protestors are innocent of violence when they have in no way been violent or complicit in violence ?
Again, it can all be a bit subjective - one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter
Can a freedom fighter be viewed as innocent ?
Interesting point; people use the term all the time. I suppose a value judgement like 'innocent' is contextual.
If someone is shot down in the street there is a justification in assuming they were 'guilty' of something e.g. actively involved in terrorism, attacking someone or using a weapon. If it is found not to be so then they are 'innocent' in that context.
Some of Derek Bird's vitims or those of The Paras on BS may have been wrong 'uns in any number of ways, but were deemed innocent of anything that would justify that particular action.
.
If someone is shot down in the street there is a justification in assuming they were 'guilty' of something e.g. actively involved in terrorism, attacking someone or using a weapon. If it is found not to be so then they are 'innocent' in that context.
Some of Derek Bird's vitims or those of The Paras on BS may have been wrong 'uns in any number of ways, but were deemed innocent of anything that would justify that particular action.
.
I suppose we would need to differentiate between the intent and the deed. If I wanted to protest personally to the PM by climbing the walls of No.10 would I be innocent ?
What if I resisted any attempt to stop me ? Would I still be innocent ? My intent might arguably be innocent but would my deeds ?
What happens when two peaceful groups with opposite views meet up and there is violence. Who, if anyone, be innocent ?
What if I resisted any attempt to stop me ? Would I still be innocent ? My intent might arguably be innocent but would my deeds ?
What happens when two peaceful groups with opposite views meet up and there is violence. Who, if anyone, be innocent ?
True.
Perhaps its about (horrible word) proportionality.
If you were a harmless nutter who was determined to get into No 10 for a chat you might be 'innocent'. I would expect you to be asked to stop; if you persist you are no longer 'innocent'; if you resisted I would expect force to be used. If you ended up with some cuts and bruises I think that would be proportionate in the context of protecting the security of our Head of state.
If you were shot dead by a marksman as soon as you stuck your head over the wall I think that would be disproportionate and potentially the killing of an 'innocent'.
On a practical note, I do know a woman who a few years ago took a taxi from Birmingham to Buckingham Palace and asked the police at the gate how she could get in because she was Princess Lilly and was married to Prince Charles.
She was treated very reasonably and has been in a nice secure hospital in Pimlico ever since.
.
Perhaps its about (horrible word) proportionality.
If you were a harmless nutter who was determined to get into No 10 for a chat you might be 'innocent'. I would expect you to be asked to stop; if you persist you are no longer 'innocent'; if you resisted I would expect force to be used. If you ended up with some cuts and bruises I think that would be proportionate in the context of protecting the security of our Head of state.
If you were shot dead by a marksman as soon as you stuck your head over the wall I think that would be disproportionate and potentially the killing of an 'innocent'.
On a practical note, I do know a woman who a few years ago took a taxi from Birmingham to Buckingham Palace and asked the police at the gate how she could get in because she was Princess Lilly and was married to Prince Charles.
She was treated very reasonably and has been in a nice secure hospital in Pimlico ever since.
.
-- answer removed --
Excuse me but are you talking about the de Menzes young man who had a rucksack on his back and ran away from the police when they challenged him? Was this person an illegal alien, who could not speak the English language, whom to everyone but himself could have been a terrorist/bomber . The police had just had the chore of having terrorists with rucksacks etc, roaming around London's underground? Are the police supposed to know who is or who isn't in full command of their senses. He wasn't murdered, the police were only doing their job. If he had stopped when challanged as he should have done it wouldn't have happened. As it was he turned out to be an illegal numbskull and the police had to take the rap.
He didnt have a rucksack and he wasnt running, he was sitting in the train when he had about seven bullets shot into him. this has all since been confirmed.if you were sitting in a train and somebody started shouting and waving a gun you wouldnt think it was for you,so why should he have stood up and surrendered when he had no idea what was going on.
http://www.timesonlin.../uk/article549150.ece
Have to apologise about the link, but check this out de Menez was an illegal, he had a
forged stamp on his passport his visa expired 2years previously. He refused to respond to a police challenge and vaulted over ticket barriers to evade capture, does that give you some idea? He was shot dead because the armed Police do not or should not play pussy. bundleone grow up.
Have to apologise about the link, but check this out de Menez was an illegal, he had a
forged stamp on his passport his visa expired 2years previously. He refused to respond to a police challenge and vaulted over ticket barriers to evade capture, does that give you some idea? He was shot dead because the armed Police do not or should not play pussy. bundleone grow up.
Gran, Mr Menezes was innocent. In your own link are these paragraphs:
-Last night his family accused the police of changing their account of the incident. At first Scotland Yard said that Mr de Menezes had been wearing a heavy jacket despite the warm weather, and had refused to respond to a police challenge, vaulting over the ticket barrier in an apparent attempt to escape.
But his cousin told a press conference yesterday that senior officers at Scotland Yard had now retracted their claims that Mr de Menezes was acting suspiciously, so that officers had no option but to open fire. -
Look him up in Wikepidia (however spelt) Police shot him execution style. They made all sorts of false contradictory claims - he never jumped over turnstiles or ran onto train, so why was he shot?
-Last night his family accused the police of changing their account of the incident. At first Scotland Yard said that Mr de Menezes had been wearing a heavy jacket despite the warm weather, and had refused to respond to a police challenge, vaulting over the ticket barrier in an apparent attempt to escape.
But his cousin told a press conference yesterday that senior officers at Scotland Yard had now retracted their claims that Mr de Menezes was acting suspiciously, so that officers had no option but to open fire. -
Look him up in Wikepidia (however spelt) Police shot him execution style. They made all sorts of false contradictory claims - he never jumped over turnstiles or ran onto train, so why was he shot?
I have looked at some of the reports, and it all very contradictory, At the time of the shooting the newpapers were also full of reports about the terrorists on the Tube a few days previously. In the light of this thread, he was of course innocent, But I still say that he was an illegal, from the report I read he tried to evade capture, and he has paid the full penalty for his ignorance. His family have been paid £100.00 compensation for it.
So from what I understand you are saying that if an innocent person is illegal in this Country and they tried to evade capture, it is ok for them to be shot at point blank range in the head seven times as full penalty for their ignorance?
And there ignorance limits all liability and compensation to 100.00?
Huumm I wouldn't say myself that this is the answer to dealing with illegal immigrants.
And there ignorance limits all liability and compensation to 100.00?
Huumm I wouldn't say myself that this is the answer to dealing with illegal immigrants.
Unfortunately, and aspecially during the periods of active terrorist activity as in this incident, fleeing from armed police and apparently running through a train station carrying anything that could harbor a weapon of destruction .. even a rucksack .. is going to attract a very serious response. If he had a bag .. and they could not see his hands, and did not immediately surrender, I would have expected him/her to be shot, TBH. Would you have complained if he WAS carrying a bomb?
