Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, he ran AT them after grabbing the barrel, those shots took place seconds afterwords. He was motioned, numerous times to get on his knees, I don't need a translation to figure that out, when someone aims a gun at your face, then sweeps down, it's pretty damn obvious. I can easily see this justified, but morally may not have been the choice I've made, using simrounds I've both shot and not shot in training situations somewhat similar.

Now, should he have been shot? Less than lethal tactics could easily have been used at this point. Like, when he grabbed the weapon, but that area has always, always had harsh laws and harsh people enforcing them, were looking at this through a world filter of what we expect in our countries, as someone said above, this is not a place to feth around.

I'd like to think I wouldn't have shot, but trying to armchair quarterback this is difficult given all the variables, ohh and we have the benefit of reviewing the film, and not being the one to make the split second decision.

So while I don't think this was the right choice, not going to condemn the shooter (as if it matters one way or another) unless I'm given more facts.

Indeed.

Emperors F, Andrew.. I think you're both leaning towards moral extremeties in terms of your position concerning this footage.

Frankly, there's truth to what both of you have been saying, and that's the end of it.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Blaming the victim is a common theme in your posts, isn't it?

*bamf* You spoke the magic words!

__________________________

Seriously though, I don't know what to make of this. You can say that the kid probably shouldn't have been killed as he was unarmed, you can say that the kid should have been complying with the guy pointing a gun at his face (I certainly would have been), you can say that if he hadn't been robbing people he never would have been in this predicament in the first place. There's also the possibility that he was mentally ill or something similar that caused him to behave in ways that don't seem logical.

I think I'll wait for more information before I jump to any conclusions.

Andrew1975 wrote:

BUT IT WAS A FAKE GUN D00D

I'm sure that was a real comfort to the people he was pointing it at. I'm sure they were not in fear of their lives when he pointed it at them.

It was a joke, if the capitals and the zeros in the word "Dude" didn't let you in on it.

I can see both sides of the story I suppose, sure the guy was a douche, but he was no threat to that many armed blokes.

Still, at the same time, hes in Pakistan, you dont feth about over there because their soldiers arent very professional!

He should have prostrated himself on the ground, arms out, and complied with absolutely everything they told him. Green soldiers shoot first and worry about it later.

I dont much care either way, its Pakistan! Worse stuff happens everyday.

mattyrm wrote: I dont much care either way, its Pakistan! Worse stuff happens everyday.

What are you insinuating about Pakistan; that perhaps such occurances are less important or relevant to society than if they occurred in, perhaps, the UK or America for example?

Darkvoidof40k wrote:

mattyrm wrote: I dont much care either way, its Pakistan! Worse stuff happens everyday.

What are you insinuating about Pakistan; that perhaps such occurances are less important or relevant to society than if they occurred in, perhaps, the UK or America for example?

Not even that, i care not a jot if its not in Yorkshire, let alone the whole UK!

mattyrm wrote:

Darkvoidof40k wrote:

mattyrm wrote: I dont much care either way, its Pakistan! Worse stuff happens everyday.

What are you insinuating about Pakistan; that perhaps such occurances are less important or relevant to society than if they occurred in, perhaps, the UK or America for example?

Not even that, i care not a jot if its not in Yorkshire, let alone the whole UK!

It's not about caring or being particularly affected by it in any way, it's about having an opinion on the matter that is morally acceptable.

I'm not all that bothered about it either, but to simply disregard as unimportant because it doesn't affect you is arrogant and disrespectful.

Would you still be as stoic towards the matter if it happened to, say, your neighbour or perhaps a relative or close friend of yours?

Karon wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

BUT IT WAS A FAKE GUN D00D

I'm sure that was a real comfort to the people he was pointing it at. I'm sure they were not in fear of their lives when he pointed it at them.

It was a joke, if the capitals and the zeros in the word "Dude" didn't let you in on it.

No, i got that from the tone of your past posts. But I'm sure other people would have loved to bring that up.

I'm not saying the guy should be made a hero. I just think people are always to quick to blame the guy who had the gun that was probably fearing for his life too. If you come at me and grab my gun and continue to walk towards me, you are threatening me. The guy is not a mind reader, he has no idea what saah's intentions are. All he knows is that the guy was caught robbing people at gunpoint, and now he is touching his gun and walking into him.

I'm sure there's a police force somewhere in the world that would welcome people like you, people who don't seem to have a problem with shooting people who are begging for their lives. It's too bad the SS are out of business.

Typical EF response! No real argument so you just throw mud.

Blaming the victim is a common theme in your posts, isn't it?

Wouldn't the victims be the people he was just caught robbing, for all we know this guy has been preying on people there for sometime. It's rare for criminals to get caught on there first attempts at criminal activity. If he is a victim of anything it is his own stupidity.

It could have been handled better, yes. Did he deserve to bleed out like that, no. Is he ultimately responsible for what happened to him, yes.

I think that last sentence basically sums up my thoughts on this incident. I would've put it a little less harshly and probably written a fair bit more to achieve communication of a similar point, but nonetheless, still very true of this.

EF, Andrew, chill guys, agree to disagree strongly with each other. No need to take discussion of a news story personally.

Just to expand on the point of "it could've been handled better", the man whom the criminal approached should've disabled him in a none-fatal manner. Unfortunately though, what's done is done.

Edit: Just to continue the discussion, what's everyone's thoughts of the demands for the men that apprehended Saah should be hanged? Personally it's rediculous to demand something like that. Perhaps the man who shot Saah should be reprimanded, but executed for carrying out his duty as he saw fit and in a concievably correct way? Hell no.

Edit: Just to continue the discussion, what's everyone's thoughts of the demands for the men that apprehended Saah should be hanged? Personally it's rediculous to demand something like that. Perhaps the man who shot Saah should be reprimanded, but executed for carrying out his duty as he saw fit and in a concievably correct way? Hell no.

This is kind of my point. This guy is a criminal, he fell victim to his own stupidity and now people want the head of the guard! If Saah wasn't out terrorizing people in a park, or if he had gone fetal, than this security guard wouldn't have had the opportunity to shoot him. Now people are calling out for his blood because he was forced by this D-bag to do his job!

Darkvoidof40k wrote:

It's not about caring or being particularly affected by it in any way, it's about having an opinion on the matter that is morally acceptable.

I'm not all that bothered about it either, but to simply disregard as unimportant because it doesn't affect you is arrogant and disrespectful.

Would you still be as stoic towards the matter if it happened to, say, your neighbour or perhaps a relative or close friend of yours?

Yeah alright mate take a chill pill, I already gave an opinion and was merely being a bit dissmisive at the end in jest.

As I said, theres two sides to every story, the guy was being a dick and the soldier was clearly just useless. What do people expect from Pakistani Security Forces, the fething SBS?

However, clearly the guy doesnt deserve execution! He is dogshit at his job, but its not like he machine gunned an icecream van!

Oh yes, and I would be as stoic. ESPECIALLY if it was a neighbour.

mattyrm wrote:

Darkvoidof40k wrote:

It's not about caring or being particularly affected by it in any way, it's about having an opinion on the matter that is morally acceptable.

I'm not all that bothered about it either, but to simply disregard as unimportant because it doesn't affect you is arrogant and disrespectful.

Would you still be as stoic towards the matter if it happened to, say, your neighbour or perhaps a relative or close friend of yours?

Yeah alright mate take a chill pill, I already gave an opinion and was merely being a bit dissmisive at the end in jest.

As I said, theres two sides to every story, the guy was being a dick and the soldier was clearly just useless. What do people expect from Pakistani Security Forces, the fething SBS?

However, clearly the guy doesnt deserve execution! He is dogshit at his job, but its not like he machine gunned an icecream van!

Oh yes, and I would be as stoic. ESPECIALLY if it was a neighbour.

At the time, I was just in the mood to pick apart somebodies' post.

Andrew1975 wrote:This is kind of my point. This guy is a criminal, he fell victim to his own stupidity and now people want the head of the guard!

You don't know the circumstances surrounding Shah's crime. He could have been trying to rob someone to pay for his sister's dowry or his mother's medical bill. Or he could have been a career criminal doing this for kicks.

The point is committing a crime doesn't warrant a summary street execution. People who think that have spent far too long playing with these guys.

If Saah wasn't out terrorizing people in a park, or if he had gone fetal, than this security guard wouldn't have had the opportunity to shoot him. Now people are calling out for his blood because he was forced by this D-bag to do his job!

Or maybe the guard was going to shoot him anyway, he did seem set on shoving a gun in his face from the start, even after Shah had been apprehended. This isn't the first instance of things like this being reported, the only difference is that this was caught on tape.

And,if you've watched your own video, you'd clearly see that Shah never forced the guard to resort to this.

You don't know the circumstances surrounding Shah's crime. He could have been trying to rob someone to pay for his sister's dowry or his mother's medical bill. Or he could have been a career criminal doing this for kicks.

You are right. I don't know. I don't care! Every whore has a sob story. Petty much no matter what his situation was, we has no right to stick a gun into someones face! He wasn't shoplifting, or picking pockets, he was holding a gun to people.

The point is committing a crime doesn't warrant a summary street execution. People who think that have spent far too long playing with these guys.

It wasn't a summary execution! Stop doing that. They didn't line him up on a wall, tie his hands and shoot him in the back. You love to turn everyone into victims. All he had to do was lay down. I suppose Maddof was a victim too!

And,if you've watched your own video, you'd clearly see that Shah never forced the guard to resort to this.

When he didn't lay down, when he touched the gun, when he stepped into the guard he forced the guard to take an aggressive defensive posture. You don't let adversaries withing 10 feet of you if you can help it. What if Saah had a hidden knife! By following the guard when the guard stepped back he absolutely forced the guard to do what he did. Yes he did!

Andrew1975 wrote:

You don't know the circumstances surrounding Shah's crime. He could have been trying to rob someone to pay for his sister's dowry or his mother's medical bill. Or he could have been a career criminal doing this for kicks.

You are right. I don't know. I don't care! Every whore has a sob story. Petty much no matter what his situation was, we has no right to stick a gun into someones face! He wasn't shoplifting, or picking pockets, he was holding a gun to people.

The point is committing a crime doesn't warrant a summary street execution. People who think that have spent far too long playing with these guys.

It wasn't a summary execution! Stop doing that. They didn't line him up on a wall, tie his hands and shoot him in the back. You love to turn everyone into victims. All he had to do was lay down. I suppose Maddof was a victim too!

None of the other guards showed any inclination to shoot him, he had been apprehended and knew he was in the gak. This changes when that guard storms up and brandishes his weapon. None of the other guards are acting aggresively, it's this one fellow that seems intent on putting a couple in Shah. Which he did.

And they then let him bleed to death. I don't know what you think a victim is.

And,if you've watched your own video, you'd clearly see that Shah never forced the guard to resort to this.

When he didn't lay down, when he touched the gun, when he stepped into the guard he forced the guard to take an aggressive defensive posture. You don't let adversaries withing 10 feet of you if you can help it. What if Saah had a hidden knife! By following the guard when the guard stepped back he absolutely forced the guard to do what he did. Yes he did!

Shah showed no signs of hostile aggressiveness. What he did was no different from what any person fearing for their life would do, and maybe he was of the opinion that the guard was going to shoot him regardless of whether he prostrated himself on the ground or not. How could his placating hands, his desperate pleas, his bowed stance be seen as an attack? If the guard had pulled the trigger when Shah had grabbed the gun then yes, this would be justified.

But that isnt what happened. Shah was pushed back, out of arms reach, and then the guard took a step forward and put two in him. You can't even see an unlawful killing when it's staring you in the face.

None of the other guards showed any inclination to shoot him, he had been apprehended and knew he was in the gak. This changes when that guard storms up and brandishes his weapon. None of the other guards are acting aggresively, it's this one fellow that seems intent on putting a couple in Shah. Which he did.

And they then let him bleed to death. I don't know what you think a victim is.

A victim is someone who generally is struck by tragedy through little or no fault of their own. Sorry this guy does not meet the criteria, his acts of armed robbery put him in that situation.

Shah showed no signs of hostile aggressiveness.

He touched the guards gun, then when the guard backed up about ten feet, this guy followed him and grabbed his weapon again!

What he did was no different from what any person fearing for their life would do

Really because most of the time when I see cops with guns pulled people who don't want to get shot put their hands behind their heads and knees on the ground.

and maybe he was of the opinion that the guard was going to shoot him regardless of whether he prostrated himself on the ground or not.

So now you are speculating on what an armed robber thinks. Fine, then the guard thought that Saah may have had a knife. Don't speculate, and when you do don't make a scumbags speculations more important than an officer's that is doing his job.

How could his placating hands, his desperate pleas, his bowed stance be seen as an attack?

People act like that all the time to get people to lower their guard before they attack. If he had done those things and not followed him ten feet I'd have no problem. However he continued to make moves towards the guard.

If the guard had pulled the trigger when Shah had grabbed the gun then yes, this would be justified.

He would have been firing into the ground. They had to forcibly push him away so that they could get a line on him.

Shah was pushed back, out of arms reach, and then the guard took a step forward and put two in him.

No, what you see is Saah grab the gun and step into the guard, then the view is blocked, he is thrown of the guard and shot.

You can't even see an unlawful killing when it's staring you in the face.

A formerly armed criminal grabbed a cops gun and refused to comply with orders. He got shot for it. Go try to grab a cops gun while it is in his hand and see what happens. I'd love to see your rules of engagement. Do you have to wait until he actually wrestles the gun away before you shoot at him?

Why do I even bother? I mean, you don't even think the civillians of the bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were victims.

Keep rolling, and don't forget to keep...

Keep on labeling everyone victims. You keep using the term and it's actually insulting to people that really are victims.

Technically the guard he touched is a victim of assault and battery, right? So now who's blaming the victim? Shaaaame.

All Dakka users should really ride to Pakistan in their CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT so we can figure out who is BLAMING THE VICTIM and who is the real COCONUT EATING DINOSAUR.

Bromsy wrote:Technically the guard he touched is a victim of assault and battery, right? So now who's blaming the victim? Shaaaame.

Don't know if touching an object that someone else is holding counts as battery where you're from. Down here it doesn't.

And the situation also doesn't fit the required elements for assualt. I understand you were trying to be clever, but you failed.

Looks like the dude touches the cop to me. And to fit assault

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

So a criminal, possibly resisting arrest, rushing you kinda works, hey?
So... Regardless, I really don't care and don't want to discuss this with ya, I'm just sick of the 'sure blame the victim' people seem to spout as if that is never a viable thing to do. I know we aren't going to see eye to eye on this, and I don't care. Don't get your back up and feel like this is an attack on your starry eyed world view or anything, I legitimately do not care. Keep on fighting the good fight, as you see it, for the rights of the poor and downtrodden, on dakka's off topic board.

And on it goes..

Guys, leave Faithful alone, he has his views that many of you seem to disagree with. Fine. End of.

It's obvious that nobody is going to convince anybody of anything in this thread, so y'all should give up trying and get back to a discussion on the topic that's actually going to go somewhere.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Technically the guard he touched is a victim of assault and battery, right? So now who's blaming the victim? Shaaaame.

Don't know if touching an object that someone else is holding counts as battery where you're from. Down here it doesn't.

And the situation also doesn't fit the required elements for assualt. I understand you were trying to be clever, but you failed.

Well as I said earlier, I agree with emp, and Im a man who is more than happy to shoot people.

That soldier was clearly at fault, whats he scared of?

Where we differ is that I think he should be cut some slack, I mean, he was nervous Ill bet, green.. itchy trigger finger. I don't think its as bad as premeditatedly killing someone in a book shop or something.

mattyrm wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Technically the guard he touched is a victim of assault and battery, right? So now who's blaming the victim? Shaaaame.

Don't know if touching an object that someone else is holding counts as battery where you're from. Down here it doesn't.

And the situation also doesn't fit the required elements for assualt. I understand you were trying to be clever, but you failed.

Well as I said earlier, I agree with emp, and Im a man who is more than happy to shoot people.

That soldier was clearly at fault, whats he scared of?

Where we differ is that I think he should be cut some slack, I mean, he was nervous Ill bet, green.. itchy trigger finger. I don't think its as bad as premeditatedly killing someone in a book shop or something.

It sure looked like the kid was going for the guy's gun, especially when the guard backed off and the guy followed him, reaching for the weapon. Whether the kid really intended to seize the gun or not is irrelevant.

I'm all for criticizing the cops when they do something wrong, but I don't think they were wrong in this instance.

Did the guard handle the situation to the best of human ability to not cause the death of another person. No, obviously. But then again that is not his job. His job is to protect the public good and try to make sure he gets home in one piece. The Pak security forces have good reason to be on edge.

That soldier was clearly at fault, whats he scared of?

Pak security is probably a pretty rough job, I'm sure they have plenty of credible reasons to be scared on someone entering their personal space while grabbing for their gun.

It could have been handled better, they really should have called for an ambulance, and maybe they did, how fast do you think the response time for a meatwagon is in Pak?

To put all or most of the blame on the guard, while not putting any blame on Sahh is ridiculous.

It's easy to look at the video and say he should not have shot him. But then you have to rewrite all policy. When is it acceptable to shoot someone? What does counts as a credible threat? If you can't shoot a non complying criminal suspect that is approaching you and touching your weapon, well then who do you get to shoot?

Again show me the rules of engagement that that would allow the suspect not to get shot and I will show you rules that put security forces in a constant state of danger.

EF thinks you should be able to tap dance on land mines and then claim victim when your leg gets blown off. Keep wrestling crocks and stingrays and look what happens.

Looks like he was the victim of very green paramilitaries with poor training.

Throughout the short clip you can see instances where trigger discipline is abandoned while members of the security team sweep each others' barrels.

They consistently failed to secure the thief which would have been as simple as throwing on a burlap bag and zipties.

Furthermore none of the team members are carrying body armor, webbing, or magazines on their person.

@Andrew1975

The very fact that he was able to get so close and touch their weapons is testament to the fact that they are anything but professionals.

The very fact that he was able to get so close and touch their weapons is testament to the fact that they are anything but professionals.

Oh, no doubt. I'm sure their training is probably piss poor. In the US in that exact situation he would have been shot before he was able to touch a weapon. That exact situation however would never have happened though, he would have been instantly subdued before that became a problem. When I was first watching the video I thought that guy was gonna shoot him in the face to start off with, I understood what people were upset about. Then that didn't happen.

They should have had him in cuffs before the first guy even passes him on! They really really could have handled the situation better by controlling the suspect. I'm just saying once he started approaching the guard, that was the fatal decision. That is an over aggressive guards wet dream, he basically gave the guard (who looked like he wanted an excuse in the first place) an excuse.

There is tons of fault to be placed on the security force, not personally, but procedurally the entire situation was terrible. I'm not sure what you can really expect from Pak security though. The point is yes they handled it terribly, but Saah put himself in harms way and forced the outcome.