School shooting on Brazil Today.

[All Darc]

The guy was in a physical fight with the shooter for many minutes, according some news repport. I supose when he took the gun he was near hin or still in touch and not like in a situation the criminal had surrender.

Anyway, the criminal shot his wife (hurt but not dead) in front of hin and wanted to kill everyone. The guy was the only man in the room to fight the criminal and had no other male to help, no handcuffs to stop the criminal menace after won the fight.

His anger aggainst the criminal was what made everyone (victms) survived. If he was too calm and humanitarian, his adrenalin would not be high and he would had be killed by the criminal.

[redpoint5]

As I said before, the proper way to surrender is to lie face first on the ground with hands out or on your head. Any resisting whatsoever is reason to be shot, regardless of who happens to have the upper hand at the moment. Doesn't matter where the bad guy gets shot, or how many times. The fact that the shots hit his head merely says they were well placed. I'd upset if there were 30 shots all over the place, striking other people.

We'll never know the exact circumstances, or if the criminal attempted to surrender, because we only have the testimony of those alive, and we must give them the benefit of the doubt since they are the victims, and they are the only people around to give testimony.

[Fat Charlie]

You've still got to call it an execution. You can (and should) defend it, and the criminal's family and their tame prosecutor need to answer for their own actions, but you do everyone a disservice by pretending it wasn't an execution. Own it.

And I'd love to see that lawsuit:
"My son is the victim here, he got shot in the back of the head!"
"Tell us how it happened."
"Well, he burst into a room and started shooting people..."
"And he's the victim?"
"Yeah, they didn't have to respond by shooting him. That's just criminal!"

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

You've still got to call it an execution. You can (and should) defend it, and the criminal's family and their tame prosecutor need to answer for their own actions, but you do everyone a disservice by pretending it wasn't an execution. Own it.

I don't have the facts because I wasn't there. As I said, if the person is resisting at all, then it isn't an execution. Doesn't matter how much someone has the upper hand. If the guy were completely restrained and making no effort to become unrestrained, then it was an execution.

An execution is what happened to Daniel Shaver; a story which got almost no media attention because the kid happens to have white skin. I'll link to the wiki page since the video is incredibly disturbing to watch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver

Even in this instance, the officer was acquitted of charges, a finding which I understand even if I disagree. After all, who is to say when a suspect has been sufficiently disarmed to pose no threat? There's a lot of gray between the extremes of a criminal actively firing at people, and sitting handcuffed in the back of a cruiser.

[All Darc]

Brazilian arm (5 militars) openned fire to a car, suspect, and it was about 80 rounds (rifle). The wife of the guy begged to they stop but they didn't listened. Result, 2 innocent people dead.
Was that a execution or a absurd revolting "mistake" (due careless arrogant people in militar force)??

On Brazil militar people are judged by militar justice, and they use to be tollerant with many crimes.

Redpoint, I must agree that leftwing don't give a damn to white male heterosexual victms.

[Fat Charlie]

Military aren't police.

It's a good thing that Brazil applies military justice to its soldiers. Those soldiers weren't standing on that street for their health, they were ordered there. They were working. As soldiers. Unless they violated their orders or unit SOPs, they did nothing wrong- the wrong lies with their commanders or with the politicians who sent them there.

Remember when Obama pulled the US out of Iraq? It wasn't his idea, the SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement) had expired. The previous year, the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government could not agree on a new SOFA- the Iraqis wanted US personnel to be subject to Iraqi law, and the US would not agree- so the two governments agreed to disagree and the US made plans to pull out before the current SOFA ran out. The Iraqis got tired of shootings that didn't result in prosecutions and wanted their own system to get involved. Me? SSG Fat Charlie never would have gone outside the berm if that kind of SOFA were in place, and may just not have gone at all: don't deploy me somewhere and make me worry about local laws. I didn't go their for fun, I was just working as part of my unit.