Athens Riots

[oldoldman]

I'm not going to debate the finer points of the overall justifications of these riots. But usually the "martyr" isn't innocence at all.

[Kuya]

Why "martyr"? It doesn't have to be innocent to be a martyr.

[Kiro]

It's where murder is justice that martyrs are made~

[guartz]

I'm not going to debate the finer points of the overall justifications of these riots. But usually the "martyr" isn't innocence at all.

Just to make it clear, the policemen involved said that they were attacked by protestors, and they fired warning shots, which accidently hit the kid. That's their version, so the kid could have just very well been accidentally and randomly shot.

[Kiro]

Random shots always hit the sweet spot. CS amirite?

[Kuya]

Just to make it clear, the policemen involved said that they were attacked by protestors, and they fired warning shots, which accidently hit the kid. That's their version, so the kid could have just very well been accidentally and randomly shot.

You have a link? As i've posted, i heard that he was hit by an indirect shot, which was what the police alleged, which put into question that if he was shot by accident (via bullet bouncing off ground) then why did this thing about the molotov come up? It seems like the molotov scenario only came up after the story about the bouncing bullet, and if he wasn't shot because he may have had a molotov, then what in the world was the point of saying they defended themselves from that kid with a molotov when he wasn't even the intended target?

In other words, this accusation of a molotov seems fishy to me.

edit: If i wasn't clear in the post: If you shoot someone and you say it was an accident, why would you then go and say "But he had a gun!" You either shot him by accident or you shot him because he had a weapon. Make up your mind. The defense argument sort of melts away if it was an accident, but then the point would be, who where you shooting at? Assuming it wasn't a misfire.

[Not Kuno]

Both sides are at fault here, but nobody wants to say the public is at fault in Greece because.. well you know.

The problem is this is probably going to end with martial law or having the military out in full force in the streets, and that definatly will not end well.

[guartz]

You have a link? As i've posted, i heard that he was hit by an indirect shot, which was what the police alleged, which put into question that if he was shot by accident (via bullet bouncing off ground) then why did this thing about the molotov come up? It seems like the molotov scenario only came up after the story about the bouncing bullet, and if he wasn't shot because he may have had a molotov, then what in the world was the point of saying they defended themselves from that kid with a molotov when he wasn't even the intended target?

In other words, this accusation of a molotov seems fishy to me.

edit: If i wasn't clear in the post: If you shoot someone and you say it was an accident, why would you then go and say "But he had a gun!" You either shot him by accident or you shot him because he had a weapon. Make up your mind. The defense argument sort of melts away if it was an accident, but then the point would be, who where you shooting at? Assuming it wasn't a misfire.

To be honest Kuya, I pretty much think that part of the story is rather irrelevant. The whole kid getting shot thing. It's sad, tragic what have you. But it takes away from what's happening that is really interesting.

[Kuya]

What are the faults of both sides?

[pohibaba]

edit: If i wasn't clear in the post: If you shoot someone and you say it was an accident, why would you then go and say "But he had a gun!" You either shot him by accident or you shot him because he had a weapon. Make up your mind. The defense argument sort of melts away if it was an accident, but then the point would be, who where you shooting at? Assuming it wasn't a misfire.

The way I understood it was that they were firing warning shots and one of them "accidentally" hit the kid. The reason that the molotov was brought up to justify the warning shots in the first place. I could be completely wrong though, I haven't read too much about the incident.

[Kuya]

To be honest Kuya, I pretty much think that part of the story is rather irrelevant. The whole kid getting shot thing. It's sad, tragic what have you. But it takes away from what's happening that is really interesting.

I disagree; the story is hazzy and i think it should be discussed more. I don't think scrupulous behaviour should get leeway just because there are larger things in the air. That is, just as long as we understand the bigger picture.

The way I understood it was that they were firing warning shots and one of them "accidentally" hit the kid. The reason that the molotov was brought up to justify the warning shots in the first place. I could be completely wrong though, I haven't read too much about the incident.

I see, though, i don't see why they would need to justify a warning shot, unless they needed to justify it because someone died. Whatever the case, the unintended consequence is indirectly trivializing the death of the kid.
Furthermore, does this mean no one actually knows who or what the kid was aiming at? If he in fact had a molotov cocktail, that is.

[guartz]

Ha, i found it.

Beckwin you are gonna orgasm from this. Google "Killing King Abacus"

[Not Kuno]

What are the faults of both sides?

The police for killing the kid and the kid for going overboard and getting shot.

[Kuya]

The police for killing the kid and the kid for going overboard and getting shot.

You make it sound like the police intended to kill the kid, and what do you mean "overboard"? Do you mean that he went overboard because he had a molotov cocktail? As you can see, he apparently was shot by accident, not because he had a molotov, and furthermore no one yet knows if the kid was aiming at the police, which then would mean that using deadly force on him was not justified if he was not in fact aiming for the police, however, since he was not shot because he had a molotov, instead, rather by accident, the only fault the kid had was accidentally getting killed. Is that your definition of a fault? Getting killed by accident?

[Not Kuno]

What was he doing with a molotov cocktail? You don't fuck around with things like that. The police were also stupid for killing him because of it.

[Correction]

Cops in the united states will shoot you if you're holding a grenade, regardless of where it looks like you're going to throw it.

Not enough information exists to conclude either way, but it's not yet entirely implausible that the cops would have shot him simply for having an incendiary device in his hands.

I admit it doesn't look really good for the cops, but the anarchists getting violent is not going to make things better for them, either.

[Kuya]

The police said they killed him by accident; they didn't intend to shoot him. If we believe what they say, then the kid having a molotov was not the reason he died, ergo he didn't die because of a mistake he made, but solely from a mistake others made.

[guartz]

.... but the anarchists getting violent is not going to make things better for them, either.

Reign of Terror - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

anyone?

God I hope i'm wrong.

[Not Kuno]

They're apologizing because they don't want to make this worse. Even though it is, and that's why the people are at fault too. They want this to end but the people are really pissed off. I watched the Greek news this morning talking about this, and they were just feeling for the kid and the people and taking their side.

[Chen]

we have this problem in northern ireland, were people throw stones at police / ambulance

if the kid attacking the emergency services then shoot away, it's not a huge loss of life imo.

and he had a molotov in his hand? good shot by the police man, possibly saved 2-3 innocent ppl lives who doing their job

---

of course that is only the case if everything in the link someone posted in like the 4-5 reply is true.

not much way to defend having the molotov tho, some people will try to defend carrying a gun for safety reasons, but an explosive weapon... doubt he planned to wave it in their face and ask them politely to leave