The terrorist attacks we don't care about

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

London just had one. Been in the news for a bit, but not a peep. So, I guess it qualifies as a terrorist act nobody cares about (unless I missed something around here)?

This clip has the first released photo of the f**king idiot who perpetrated the violence. He's in a gurney and being rushed to the hospital after being shot by a cop. He killed 2 and injured 20. What's with the special care? After being shot by the officer... he should have been shot one more time from point blank and... see ya, shithead.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/first-picture-of-london-attack-suspect/ar-BByBBcX?li=AAggNb9&ocid=edgsp

Absolutely, execute him without trial and miss the chance to interrogate him and at least attempt to get some information, that sounds smart!

There not going to get any information that is going to thwart the next attack by the next f**king idiot from him. They'll get that information pouring through his social media and tracing all his other activities.

And if they got the wrong guy, oh well!

HughFreakingDillon

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

London just had one. Been in the news for a bit, but not a peep. So, I guess it qualifies as a terrorist act nobody cares about (unless I missed something around here)?

This clip has the first released photo of the f**king idiot who perpetrated the violence. He's in a gurney and being rushed to the hospital after being shot by a cop. He killed 2 and injured 20. What's with the special care? After being shot by the officer... he should have been shot one more time from point blank and... see ya, shithead.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/first-picture-of-london-attack-suspect/ar-BByBBcX?li=AAggNb9&ocid=edgsp

Absolutely, execute him without trial and miss the chance to interrogate him and at least attempt to get some information, that sounds smart!

There not going to get any information that is going to thwart the next attack by the next f**king idiot from him. They'll get that information pouring through his social media and tracing all his other activities.

And if they got the wrong guy, oh well!

this.

oftenreading

Annafalk said:

oftenreading said:

It's disheartening that we are at the point when we're in favour of summary execution just because we "feel better" that someone is dead.

I'm sorry if I don't have any sympathy for a mass murdering terrorist.

No one expects you to have sympathy. It isn't even a matter of sympathy we were talking about. It's a matter of due process and rule of law, not just doing whatever the hell we feel like to people.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

PJ_Soul said:

Annafalk said:

oftenreading said:

It's disheartening that we are at the point when we're in favour of summary execution just because we "feel better" that someone is dead.

I'm sorry if I don't have any sympathy for a mass murdering terrorist.

My take is that nobody expects you to have sympathy for a mass murdering terrorist. For most anti-death penalty folks, sympathy for the criminal has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Exactly, it's more to do with a belief that no one has the right to take the life of another, even if that person be guilty of doing so themselves

And that's cool.

It's jut others feel differently about how to deal with obscenities such as this loser. I'm okay with giving him what he deserves and what he was looking for (death). If we want to treat him nicely... could we at least turn down the nice a bit? I mean... did we need to expedite his medical attention before some of his victims received theirs, brush his hair out of his eyes and hold his hand to the hospital (yes... I'm employing sarcasm to give my point a little muscle)?

As far as I know, medical professionals are trained to treat people in order of medical need, regardless of who that person might be or what they might have done. Even if that doesn't sit well with you in cases such as this, I think it is fundamentally a very important principle for medical professionals to follow

correct. you cannot give medical professionals the choice of who to treat or not to treat.

And we definitely wouldn't want it any other way.

HughFreakingDillon

after all this time, I don't understand what is so difficult for people to get about people being against the death penalty/vigilantiism not being about sympathy for the perp. it's about, as often stated, rule of law.

jnimhaoileoin

PJ_Soul said:

Annafalk said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

PJ_Soul said:

Annafalk said:

oftenreading said:

It's disheartening that we are at the point when we're in favour of summary execution just because we "feel better" that someone is dead.

I'm sorry if I don't have any sympathy for a mass murdering terrorist.

My take is that nobody expects you to have sympathy for a mass murdering terrorist. For most anti-death penalty folks, sympathy for the criminal has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Exactly, it's more to do with a belief that no one has the right to take the life of another, even if that person be guilty of doing so themselves

What if he would kill and hurt other people again? Or affect others from or in jail ? I am not pro death penalty normally just trying to think here.

I( have no issues with supermax security for these people. Will never be let out of prison and will stay in their own cell, isolated, 23 hours a day, with no access to be able to harm anyone. It's actually not that hard to ensure that someone doesn't hurt anybody again. There are sentences and prisons that can deal with that.

It sounds so simple and yet a life sentence is rarely a life sentence and don't get me started on the ridiculously lenient sentences for vehicular manslaughter...

Anyway, I feel I may have taken this thread off on a tangent, apologies

PJ_Soul

jnimhaoileoin said:

PJ_Soul said:

Annafalk said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

PJ_Soul said:

Annafalk said:

oftenreading said:

It's disheartening that we are at the point when we're in favour of summary execution just because we "feel better" that someone is dead.

I'm sorry if I don't have any sympathy for a mass murdering terrorist.

My take is that nobody expects you to have sympathy for a mass murdering terrorist. For most anti-death penalty folks, sympathy for the criminal has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Exactly, it's more to do with a belief that no one has the right to take the life of another, even if that person be guilty of doing so themselves

What if he would kill and hurt other people again? Or affect others from or in jail ? I am not pro death penalty normally just trying to think here.

I( have no issues with supermax security for these people. Will never be let out of prison and will stay in their own cell, isolated, 23 hours a day, with no access to be able to harm anyone. It's actually not that hard to ensure that someone doesn't hurt anybody again. There are sentences and prisons that can deal with that.

It sounds so simple and yet a life sentence is rarely a life sentence and don't get me started on the ridiculously lenient sentences for vehicular manslaughter...

Anyway, I feel I may have taken this thread off on a tangent, apologies

It is simple. All that's needed is appropriate sentencing. The law usually actually allows for real life terms in appropriate facilities for heinous crimes, but it still comes down to the judges who determine the sentences. I don't think that being unhappy with the failures of the courts is a good reason to just start killing people instead. I do agree that poor sentencing is a BIG problem in the criminal justice system though, in many countries, and I know it's frustrating. Canada has the same problem in many cases (and not just with murderers). Simply instating the death penalty instead of holding judges and the law to higher standards seems like flawed logic to me.

Annafalk

oftenreading said:

Annafalk said:

oftenreading said:

It's disheartening that we are at the point when we're in favour of summary execution just because we "feel better" that someone is dead.

I'm sorry if I don't have any sympathy for a mass murdering terrorist.

No one expects you to have sympathy. It isn't even a matter of sympathy we were talking about. It's a matter of due process and rule of law, not just doing whatever the hell we feel like to people.

I have never said that it's ok to do whatever the hell we feel like to people. I just don't grief a dead terrorist. Do you mean this terrorist was shot under wrong circumstances ? Why are we even talking about death penalty?

oftenreading

Annafalk said:

oftenreading said:

Annafalk said:

oftenreading said:

It's disheartening that we are at the point when we're in favour of summary execution just because we "feel better" that someone is dead.

I'm sorry if I don't have any sympathy for a mass murdering terrorist.

No one expects you to have sympathy. It isn't even a matter of sympathy we were talking about. It's a matter of due process and rule of law, not just doing whatever the hell we feel like to people.

I have never said that it's ok to do whatever the hell we feel like to people. I just don't grief a dead terrorist. Do you mean this terrorist was shot under wrong circumstances ? Why are we even talking about death penalty?

First, as several people have said, this has nothing to do with grief. Or sympathy.

Second, go back and read the series of posts you quoted to understand how your comment is being viewed. Thirty said something to the effect that he should not have received medical attention and instead should have received another bullet in the head (I'm paraphrasing here). Rgambs objected to this, to which you said "But it feels bettter that he's dead", which certainly seems to support the idea that you agree with Thirty's assessment. If you don't, then great.

And I didn't bring up the DP. It just keeps cropping up on its own.

Go Beavers

Probably because the DP is about vengeance, even though some argue it's not.

Annafalk

oftenreading said:

Annafalk said:

oftenreading said:

Annafalk said:

oftenreading said:

It's disheartening that we are at the point when we're in favour of summary execution just because we "feel better" that someone is dead.

I'm sorry if I don't have any sympathy for a mass murdering terrorist.

No one expects you to have sympathy. It isn't even a matter of sympathy we were talking about. It's a matter of due process and rule of law, not just doing whatever the hell we feel like to people.

I have never said that it's ok to do whatever the hell we feel like to people. I just don't grief a dead terrorist. Do you mean this terrorist was shot under wrong circumstances ? Why are we even talking about death penalty?

First, as several people have said, this has nothing to do with grief. Or sympathy.

Second, go back and read the series of posts you quoted to understand how your comment is being viewed. Thirty said something to the effect that he should not have received medical attention and instead should have received another bullet in the head (I'm paraphrasing here). Rgambs objected to this, to which you said "But it feels bettter that he's dead", which certainly seems to support the idea that you agree with Thirty's assessment. If you don't, then great.

And I didn't bring up the DP. It just keeps cropping up on its own.

Ok thank you for clarifying.
I was just referring to as it turned out, that he died. (And that it feels better that way for safety reasons)

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I understand the principles of emergency response teams.

I just don't agree that a knife wielding manic should be prioritized over his victims. Some of you do. That's fine.

oftenreading

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I understand the principles of emergency response teams.

I just don't agree that a knife wielding manic should be prioritized over his victims. Some of you do. That's fine.

Was he prioritized over his victims?

Priority of medical attention should be in order of seriousness of the status. Life threatening wounds should be attended to before non-life threatening, which would come before minor wounds. Did he receive treatment before anyone else with wounds as or more serious?

This is a genuine question, not a poke.

PJfanwillneverleave1

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I understand the principles of emergency response teams.

I just don't agree that a knife wielding manic should be prioritized over his victims. Some of you do. That's fine.

Was he prioritized over his victims?

Priority of medical attention should be in order of seriousness of the status. Life threatening wounds should be attended to before non-life threatening, which would come before minor wounds. Did he receive treatment before anyone else with wounds as or more serious?

This is a genuine question, not a poke.

I am glad he was attended to first as this meant he was the more serious condition.
Too bad he died

Thirty Bills Unpaid

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I understand the principles of emergency response teams.

I just don't agree that a knife wielding manic should be prioritized over his victims. Some of you do. That's fine.

Was he prioritized over his victims?

Priority of medical attention should be in order of seriousness of the status. Life threatening wounds should be attended to before non-life threatening, which would come before minor wounds. Did he receive treatment before anyone else with wounds as or more serious?

This is a genuine question, not a poke.

I don't know.

My original point spoke towards the fact that the principles of triage left him in a favourable position to receive medical care over one of his victims that might have been lying there- bleeding or broken, but stable.

This is messed up in my mind.

PJfanwillneverleave1

^^^
cmon TB
Imagine saving this guy, he attends trial and receives the DP.
Glorious!
Alas, it didn't turn out that way.

hedonist

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I understand the principles of emergency response teams.

I just don't agree that a knife wielding manic should be prioritized over his victims. Some of you do. That's fine.

Was he prioritized over his victims?

Priority of medical attention should be in order of seriousness of the status. Life threatening wounds should be attended to before non-life threatening, which would come before minor wounds. Did he receive treatment before anyone else with wounds as or more serious?

This is a genuine question, not a poke.

This makes sense, and as much......ugh, what is the word?.....I feel toward the person responsible, I also can't help go back to that classic photo of black doctors and nurses saving the life of a KKK member.

oftenreading

hedonist said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I understand the principles of emergency response teams.

I just don't agree that a knife wielding manic should be prioritized over his victims. Some of you do. That's fine.

Was he prioritized over his victims?

Priority of medical attention should be in order of seriousness of the status. Life threatening wounds should be attended to before non-life threatening, which would come before minor wounds. Did he receive treatment before anyone else with wounds as or more serious?

This is a genuine question, not a poke.

This makes sense, and as much......ugh, what is the word?.....I feel toward the person responsible, I also can't help go back to that classic photo of black doctors and nurses saving the life of a KKK member.

Yes.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I understand the principles of emergency response teams.

I just don't agree that a knife wielding manic should be prioritized over his victims. Some of you do. That's fine.

Was he prioritized over his victims?

Priority of medical attention should be in order of seriousness of the status. Life threatening wounds should be attended to before non-life threatening, which would come before minor wounds. Did he receive treatment before anyone else with wounds as or more serious?

This is a genuine question, not a poke.

I don't know.

My original point spoke towards the fact that the principles of triage left him in a favourable position to receive medical care over one of his victims that might have been lying there- bleeding or broken, but stable.

This is messed up in my mind.

I work in health care, and the most essential core of medical ethics is that the person in front of you is your patient and you treat them to the best of your abilities. There is no place in medicine to allow your judgement of the person's worth to colour whether or how you provide that care. Anyone who doesn't agree with this does not deserve to work in health care. And I really don't care if it is messed up in your mind, as long as you're not the one there providing care.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

oftenreading said:

hedonist said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I understand the principles of emergency response teams.

I just don't agree that a knife wielding manic should be prioritized over his victims. Some of you do. That's fine.

Was he prioritized over his victims?

Priority of medical attention should be in order of seriousness of the status. Life threatening wounds should be attended to before non-life threatening, which would come before minor wounds. Did he receive treatment before anyone else with wounds as or more serious?

This is a genuine question, not a poke.

This makes sense, and as much......ugh, what is the word?.....I feel toward the person responsible, I also can't help go back to that classic photo of black doctors and nurses saving the life of a KKK member.

Yes.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I understand the principles of emergency response teams.

I just don't agree that a knife wielding manic should be prioritized over his victims. Some of you do. That's fine.

Was he prioritized over his victims?

Priority of medical attention should be in order of seriousness of the status. Life threatening wounds should be attended to before non-life threatening, which would come before minor wounds. Did he receive treatment before anyone else with wounds as or more serious?

This is a genuine question, not a poke.

I don't know.

My original point spoke towards the fact that the principles of triage left him in a favourable position to receive medical care over one of his victims that might have been lying there- bleeding or broken, but stable.

This is messed up in my mind.

I work in health care, and the most essential core of medical ethics is that the person in front of you is your patient and you treat them to the best of your abilities. There is no place in medicine to allow your judgement of the person's worth to colour whether or how you provide that care. Anyone who doesn't agree with this does not deserve to work in health care. And I really don't care if it is messed up in your mind, as long as you're not the one there providing care.

Fantastic mentality.

For the record... if ever you or your colleague are ever saving me from a life threatening wound... please know that it wasn't inflicted as I was killing and maiming a bunch of people.

But in all seriousness... it actually is a great mentality- necessary really. Have a nice night.

oftenreading

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

hedonist said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I understand the principles of emergency response teams.

I just don't agree that a knife wielding manic should be prioritized over his victims. Some of you do. That's fine.

Was he prioritized over his victims?

Priority of medical attention should be in order of seriousness of the status. Life threatening wounds should be attended to before non-life threatening, which would come before minor wounds. Did he receive treatment before anyone else with wounds as or more serious?

This is a genuine question, not a poke.

This makes sense, and as much......ugh, what is the word?.....I feel toward the person responsible, I also can't help go back to that classic photo of black doctors and nurses saving the life of a KKK member.

Yes.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I understand the principles of emergency response teams.

I just don't agree that a knife wielding manic should be prioritized over his victims. Some of you do. That's fine.

Was he prioritized over his victims?

Priority of medical attention should be in order of seriousness of the status. Life threatening wounds should be attended to before non-life threatening, which would come before minor wounds. Did he receive treatment before anyone else with wounds as or more serious?

This is a genuine question, not a poke.

I don't know.

My original point spoke towards the fact that the principles of triage left him in a favourable position to receive medical care over one of his victims that might have been lying there- bleeding or broken, but stable.

This is messed up in my mind.

I work in health care, and the most essential core of medical ethics is that the person in front of you is your patient and you treat them to the best of your abilities. There is no place in medicine to allow your judgement of the person's worth to colour whether or how you provide that care. Anyone who doesn't agree with this does not deserve to work in health care. And I really don't care if it is messed up in your mind, as long as you're not the one there providing care.

Fantastic mentality.

For the record... if ever you or your colleague are ever saving me from a life threatening wound... please know that it wasn't inflicted as I was killing and maiming a bunch of people.

But in all seriousness... it actually is a great mentality- necessary really. Have a nice night.

You too.