- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
I agree it is for a war journalist, but I was responding to the (IMHO somewhat obvious question) as to why a photographer would point a camera at a gunship
and help to keep the site free for all
-
Important: the Server Hamster is in need of a bit of TLC so the site will be off line for a while on Friday morning, the 17th
US Soldier Charged with Leaking Video of Reuters' Photographer Being Killed
- Thread starter Just Dave
- Start date
I agree it is for a war journalist, but I was responding to the (IMHO somewhat obvious question) as to why a photographer would point a camera at a gunship
- Messages
- 4,729
- Name
- Jamie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If blue bullet proof vest stopped you getting shot then the insurgents would be wearing them wouldn't they
I wasn't suggesting that by wearing a blue vest you wouldn't be shot at. Rather that it would stimulate people looking for weapons to think of what else could be in their hands. As people have already said, if you view that video looking for guns and not knowing they're photographers and don't have the knowledge to identify a Canon lens it's easy to understand what they believed to have seen. The situation would probably have been different had they identified 2 journalists carrying cameras.
- Messages
- 2,784
- Name
- Derek
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Listen mate, what the hell do you know? Do you know something we don't? Were you actually there?
- Messages
- 7,842
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, but the majority of peoples opinions are based on no experience, no knowledge and facts reported by our superb media, who never talk crap to sell papers, do they?..........
Still no sign of your helicopter.....
.......but I see you are still of the view that you need to jump off a cliff........
...............to know it will be sore!
- Messages
- 4,347
- Name
- You can call me Sir.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I see where you're going with the idea but it's not practical is it. The helicopter pilot has to look and judge what someone is carrying in their hands and decide is it a lethal weapon or something else. With your suggestion they would have to look for something that could be a weapon, then see if the person holding the weapon is wearing a blue vest or something else to identify them as a journalist and then the pilot has to review the situation. The very idea that wearing something that identifies a person as a journalist which should make the pilot think twice about what they're doing means that there is something else the enemy can dress up as to try and disguise what they're doing.
Although it's a different theatre, the enemy are already disguising themselves as soldiers and policemen, do we really need to give them another uniform to hide behind?
- Messages
- 7,842
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 7,842
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
Still awaiting replies from the bold Arkady and Fracster..........
......not to mention what nobber means!
......not to mention what nobber means!
- Messages
- 7,408
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Listen mate, what the hell do you know? Do you know something we don't? Were you actually there?
I will tell you what I know, I have seen active service have you?? No?? Then wind you neck in just a tad
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes.I have seen active service, but I will not discuss it with you, nor anybody else on here.
Goodbye.
I have replied Mike...read it again if you're in doubt. IMO you're just trolling now so I'll let the mods decide...
If you don't know what a nobber is, well... you've obviously led a very sheltered life...:shrug:
Maybe that's why you have a hard time with these situations...
- Messages
- 7,842
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
Not trolling in the slightest, I thought it best to ask you for clarification of what you didn't understand in my original post. If you don't want to reply to that post, so be it.
Just don't be surprised when people wonder how you changed your views from this, on the original thread..
" I hate to sound-off on this, but Grow-Up, people, please!
The guys coming to claim the bodies today will be the ones shooting at us tomorrow. Kill them now, or they might kill us tomorrow or the next day - it's as simple as that."
to this, on this thread..
" The subsequent attack on what was obviously a civilian ambulance (I've been there - they all look like that) was totally outrageous...no weapons visible, no immediate threat other than the removal of the 'combatants'... "
.....and that purely on the basis of a link not opening?
Your subsequent posts have retreated away from this " was totally outrageous " to " The second 'shoot' on the ambulance is not so clear-cut and bears further scrutiny. As i mentioned before. "
Only you didn't mention anything before?
All in all, your posts in these threads are definitely a head-scratching job.
Did you read the bit where I clearly stated that I hadn't viewed the video in the previous thread, only seen the still images and read the news report?
That bit?
Mike, you're boring me now and it's too hot to argue with someone who's obviously being deliberately obtuse.
That bit?
Mike, you're boring me now and it's too hot to argue with someone who's obviously being deliberately obtuse.
- Messages
- 3,836
- Name
- Trev
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
At the risk of sounding like a pleb, if you couldn't view the video maybe you would have been better off not commenting. Obviously now you saw the video you understood a bit more.
you know i've got no beef at all with you but I trust you can understand why some folk including myself were bewildered. Personally I wouldn't have even dared making such a comment The guys coming to claim the bodies today will be the ones shooting at us tomorrow. Kill them now, or they might kill us tomorrow or the next day - it's as simple as that if I couldn't see the video... and this is ME we're talking about!
Well that comment might just have been made in light of my actual experience on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan over the past ten years - did you stop to consider that?
Quite often those collecting bodies are other insurgents. It IS as simple as that.
Civilians tend to know better than to hang around when Apaches are loitering...
We do publicise it quite a bit you know...TV, radio, newspapers - even in the mosques...
Quite often those collecting bodies are other insurgents. It IS as simple as that.
Civilians tend to know better than to hang around when Apaches are loitering...
We do publicise it quite a bit you know...TV, radio, newspapers - even in the mosques...
- Messages
- 204
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
With regard to the above comment, what would you have done in London at the height of the terrorist threat and the incident at Stockwell Tube station ?
If you take your comment and replace war zone with London - scene of recent terrorist atrocities, replace possible insurgents with suspected terrorist /suicide bomber, would you have shot them as well ?
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
This wasn't a video of your actual experience though was it?
- Messages
- 4,347
- Name
- You can call me Sir.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How on earth are you drawing a comparison between suicide bombers and armed insurgents? One get's to use their weapon once, then it's pretty much useless, the other's weapon will keep going long after it's first fired if someone else picks it up.
Two completely different situations that aren't remotely comparable by my reckoning.
- Messages
- 204
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Whether you get to use a weapon once or a hundred times, the scenarios are still similar, if not the same, so what would you have done if you were in London at the time of the terrorist atrocities ?
Their is No difference at all - the aim of a terrorist or insurgent is to is to maim, injure or kill.
The point Im trying to get at is that the Apache personel perceived a threat and took action - the Met Police perceived a threat and took action - in both cases, they were both wrong in their perception.
So I asked would you shoot in both scenarios ?
- Messages
- 7,842
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes I did read that, you said the link didn't work........
...........which could be the wee reason I said " .....and that purely on the basis of a link not opening? "
As I had read all your posts and you obviously did not read mine, your boredom is catching.
I have made my point and will try not to post again in this thread.
- Messages
- 4,347
- Name
- You can call me Sir.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't know the ins and outs of the CDM shooting, only the bits I saw on the news but my opinion is that the officers who shot him (who just like the pilots had to refer back to a command post for authorisation first) acted correctly based on the information they had. The problem with that case is that the information the officers were given was crap. If they'd have had good intelligence he wouldn't have been shot, but the right person probably would have.
Now to try and tie the two situations a little better for comparison, if CDM had been a suicide bomber and by shooting him they stopped him detonating the bomb that would have been a good thing. So now what happens if someone comes over to his body and starts moving him? Here it becomes different to the Iraq video because the police, unlike the pilots, would have been in direct threat of someone else trying to set off the bomb. If someone had tried to grab the trigger the police would have been close enough to physically restrain them from getting close enough without slotting them, something the pilots couldn't do.
Isn't it nice that everyone has 20:20 hindsight.
'Acted correctly based on the information they had' WTF??!
There was no evidence. They acted in the heat of the moment. They saw a non-white guy running (with a backpack on) to the tube, caught up with him and unloaded several rounds.
He was completely innocent, hence the mass investigation into the Met and continued rallying from his family (amongst others) for justice. They had no intel on this guy whatsoever. He was a young innocent man shot in the cold light of day. Horrific.
- Messages
- 204
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't know the ins and outs of the CDM shooting, only the bits I saw on the news but my opinion is that the officers who shot him (who just like the pilots had to refer back to a command post for authorisation first) acted correctly based on the information they had. The problem with that case is that the information the officers were given was crap. If they'd have had good intelligence he wouldn't have been shot, but the right person probably would have.
Now to try and tie the two situations a little better for comparison, if CDM had been a suicide bomber and by shooting him they stopped him detonating the bomb that would have been a good thing. So now what happens if someone comes over to his body and starts moving him? Here it becomes different to the Iraq video because the police, unlike the pilots, would have been in direct threat of someone else trying to set off the bomb. If someone had tried to grab the trigger the police would have been close enough to physically restrain them from getting close enough without slotting them, something the pilots couldn't do.
Isn't it nice that everyone has 20:20 hindsight.
You hit the nail on the head - hindsight is a wonderful thing but unfortunately in short supply......... however horrific the events with the Apache were, people will draw their own conclusions as to events that have happened - the point of my post was to try and see what people would do in a similar scenario - It boils down to the self preservation instinct,we all have - sometimes mistakes are made, for the sake of self preservation.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
and for what it worth I don't see the comparison here - other then innocent people dying, and the inquest into CMD's horrifc death bascially concluded the police officers on the ground lied. How you can say the individual officers did their best is just well past my understanded
- Messages
- 3,836
- Name
- Trev
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That would be my question too.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
nobody can - we'll just have to take the inquest jury at their word. They were about as daming as they can be
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/12/de-menezes-verdict
good enough?
- Messages
- 4,347
- Name
- You can call me Sir.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It was my understanding that it was a case of mistaken identity. They had significant intel on someone living in the building or vicinity of CDM who had a similar description and the men on the ground got the two of them mixed up.
It's not like they were waiting around the tube station for dodgy looking men was it. Didn't they follow him from his home based on the (incorrect) information they had?
- Messages
- 204
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Mistaken identity as in RPG launcher or a Canon lens ???
As human beings,we are,sometimes with tragic consequences, only human
Yes, he lived as the same block of flats of 4 suspected bombers and yes it is believed it was a case of mistaken identity, but I am still struggling to see how this really makes an allowance for the polices extreme actions and ultimately poor judgment?
As you say that acted on INCORRECT information - therefore making him completely innocent.
He was shot 7 times in the head (bit excessive one might feel) and once in the shoulder, in front of the general public. Pretty traumatic all round.
I can kind of see what you are saying that we are only human and that we make mistakes, but this is at the hands of the police are meant to protect us. I don't think his family would take much from 'oh sorry, it was a case of mistaken identity'. Hence the massive investigation into the Met's policy on shoot to kill in regards to terroists.
As in for people asking for evidence, I thought this was a big enough and well documented account that it might not be necessary (and obviously there is so much literature on this case), but here you go:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm
http://www.justice4jean.org/
http://inquest.justice4jean.org/
The photographer had a Canon lens sure enough, but at least two members of that group were armed: the guy behind the photographer has what looks like an RPG launcher and there's at least one AK amongst that group.
Weapons were subsequently recovered. Or rather the troops who arrived at the scene say there were. The guy whose body is run over by the first US vehicle on the scene was the one with the RPG launcher.
Whether they were in the right to fire on them is going to be an ongoing cause for debate.
I just hate hearing the trigger happy pr***s running commentary. When the tank runs over the guy it sounds like he’s getting a hard on, he's more than content with the annihilation of the rescue vehicle (which had two children it in) as well. I find it disgusting.
I just hate hearing the trigger happy pr***s running commentary. When the tank runs over the guy it sounds like he’s getting a hard on, he's more than content with the annihilation of the rescue vehicle (which had two children it in) as well. I find it disgusting.