Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015

(no subject)
The siege has lasted almost two weeks...

I am really annoyed that they just haven't shot him yet. I mean... storm the building, gas him, shoot him with sleeping darts if they want him alive for some reason... but Jesus Christ, how pathetic have the police been? I am normally pro-establishment, but really this is a failure. Our police force is the best equipped, best paid and fitter, stronger than many other Western countries, but... what is with this resultant softness?

I understand and am happy if this is a modern day psychological test... seeing what happens to a person during a long term siege, but I don't think that's what is being done... it's annoying me.

Their excuses "We don't want a firefight in the street" is meaningless, nearby residents have been moved away... if the police don't have the guts to just go in and get the guy, where's the army? Actually I understand that unless national security is threatened the army are not allowed to interfere in civilian justice, but... all this amounts to Vexen-confusion. There must be ulterior motives behind the police abstinence, like the guy must not be killed, maybe he has really important knowledge of something... or maybe they think this ridiculous wetness is somehow a deterrent to others who would defy? the police? I believe in powerful police, effective police /on the street/, not just long prison sentences. So this annoys me.

Anyway, in other news... nope, no other news, have all night to do things... what should I do?

  • 1
In other news, we haven't joined the Euro yet, and that annoys me too.

Unless you intend to sound like a fishwife in a corner-shop, I think you'd better specify a benefit of shooting the guy.

Nearby residents were relocated to hotels, over Christmas, over New Years', and he has from time to time shot at the police, I don't mean necessarily to say that they should kill him, on that issue I am unsure, but I think that allowing this to go on (at tremendous expense, employing 50 police officers day and night) as long as it has is wrong, considering how much more suffering could be prevented by ending this (at the criminals expense) quicker.

There is a risk a policeman will get shot, but even non-risk measures (such as gas) have not been employed until today or yesterday... "social justice" has been lost somewhere inside a modern-day will towards a "good guy badge"[1], where many more people suffer than would if this nuisance was dealt with more rapidly.

[1] Good Guy Badge = where public image becomes more important than content, an outside veneer of modern goodness, rather than actually doing something as it should be done, despite perhaps being frowned upon.

I believe that as you disturb the lives of more people, then you should pay the consequences. It is more philanthropic here to attack him, remove him, if he becomes injured then the hospital costs surely wont outweight the costs of a two week seige, and his suffering (or perhaps the suffering of a wounded policeman) will not compare to the suffering of those who are inconvenienced by him... brandishing a weapon of his own, is it not true that he himself has declared it moral to use that weapon? That he himself sees armed conflict to be an acceptable, under some circumstances, course of action? Even necessary. In this situation, the criminal is winning as long as we sit by and do nothing, and whether we shoot him or out-sit him, the result is that he is "winning" at the cost of everyone around him. He, himself, is creating greater evil than killing him would.

Though, as I said, I am not sure if we can simply kill him, because he may be insane or his actions may be fixed by some events that I do not know about, that justify his action.

In any case, he lost his hostage multiple days ago, the windows to the apartment are accessible, (although he has barricaded the front door)... you know, we went into Sierra Leonne and retrieved dozens of hostages from a fully armed small rebel army and only suffered /injuries/... I'm confused that we can't deal with a lone gunman in a house in London!

Apparently they've got him now... but I am interested in learning how come it lasted so long! Maybe he was a fully trained combat soldier of such high prestige that the police feared they could not take him by force! Like Leon...

Some related BBC links:
Siege cost "reaches £500,000 cost", and that was on the 9th day (it's been 15 days, now...)

"At the last count, 32 adults and seven children were still unable to leave their homes in Hackney and are continuing to have food and supplies delivered."

and 16 moved to live in hotel accomodation/homes.

OK... rant over... as a disclaimer know that I'm not pretending to know all the facts or to think that my opinion is better than anyone elses, etc etc!...

I hadn't realised that he had in fact already shot at police. In that case, under the simple human right of self-defence, he did indeed merit a bullet in the head. However I do not consider that inconvenience, even the severe inconvenience of 39 innocent people, merits the execution of a criminal. Five years in prison would have been a lot more confinement than he inflicted on society.

I don't understand your distaste for the "Good Guy Badge." The police have a public mandate to protect the peace. They are public servants. It is therefore right and desirable that they should act in a manner which meets public approval, within the limits of the law. (Well, nearly. I'm not quite on track here, since we have a public that approves of the summary burning of suspected paediatricians.)

No, their inconvenience does not automatically warrant a death. Death is the absolute worst thing ever, it is heart-aching to think of even a single person dying, I hate that thought, because I very much don't want to die, and everyone is unique, every death is a catastrophie. Should I myself try to kill someone, however, I am saying that I do not value life, this most sacred thing... sacred, yet nature itself and the animal world is violent and death ridden. We are 'above' that, our intellect and sciences go towards /saving/ life, when some of us degrade so that we do not have this as an aim, and try to kill others, we declare ourselves to be instigators and victims of death of life, the stakes are raised accordingly.

Sometimes people go wrong temporarily, and can be fixed. Sometimes people suffer bad experiences or circumstances and they kill someone, and then never kill anyone ever again... so we shouldn't automatically kill anyone who kills, but give them chances... but when, in addition to killing you hold out in a seige, absolutely resolute, and do not surrender, and inconvenience people, and try to kill the police... then sometimes I think the police don't have a right to protect this person from the consequences of his own actions. His own actions declare he himself to have embraced and encouraged death, destruction...

*giggles at self*

OK, pretentious text aside...

Really, I was just confused as to how a siege like that can go on for so long, and I suspect we don't have all the facts through the news and media, and that there are things we wont know until later. Knowing that, it is impossible for us to know what should have been done. But on the surface of it, when he shoots at police (amongst whom, on later days, were skilled marksmen) I am confused as to how the shooter himself was not shot by them. Anyway... becuse of the expense of this, I bet it'll remain in the news for a while, or at least turn up again later on, hopefully with more enlightening information than what we have already. I don't really think that the police should risk their own lives (storming) in addition to the criminals, just to alleviate the inconvenience of a few dozen people.

In other news, in the long hours of last night I wrote a very strange piece of fiction that I am calling "Horror 2", it's not very good because I'm not a good writer, want to read it? It's definately a product of a night time mind. It's got me in it, but I'm a figment of someone's imagination.

The problem with sleep darts is that they take some time to take effect during which he can shoot back or shoot himself. The problems with gas the russians demonstraited very well a few weeks back at a moscow theatre.

Thier aim was to get him out alive I guess it comes down to placeing a human life above a bit of inconvinience.

Valid point about sleep darts. Guess we'll have to wait until he's... asleep!

I think I'm going through a misanthropic phase... but, the guy has brought it upon himself, and I am inclined towards being happy and proud if we just killed him... "tough on crime" so far has meant "increased prison sentences", which *isn't* and has never been a way to reduce crime. Occasionally shooting the more immoral criminals (like, for example, the armed ones) is, as far as I see it, better.

We're on the verge of war with Iraq because they *might* attack someone, yet we're not willing to take out a single criminal who has already *tried* to shoot the police... it seems hypocritical of us! I don't like that... but, I don't know what the solution is, and I do not claim to be an authority on morals... or even, at best, to be particularly moral when it comes with criminal justice... I don't want a death penalty, but when an armed criminal shoots at others I *do* think that grants us rights (through the criminals own actions) to shoot him back until he is no longer a threat. (This doesn't auto-imply we kill him, just that we do whatever is necessary). The inconvenience or injury of the criminal is of little concern to me compared to the suffering of the innocent.

We're on the verge of war with Iraq because they *might* attack someone, yet we're not willing to take out a single criminal who has already *tried* to shoot the police... it seems hypocritical of us!

Using the aviodence of hypocricy as a justification for an act that is moraly questionable* is tantermount to claiming two wrongs make a right.

*Note the use of the word "Questionable". as these are both complex issues where the answers are matters of some debate.

On Iraq. The threat of war I think is justified and if you make threats like that you must be prepared to follow through as If your just bluffing you run the risk of it being called. This said there is no point makeing a threat of war if there isn't a serious and workable avenue open to the threterned person the following of which will gaurentee peace. It dose apear that America with the complicity of other nations seems intent on blocking of any avenue leading to peace. Such a rute must be made clear for the threat of war to have the desiered effect.

  • 1

Log in

No account? Create an account