2 Dead as Protests Break out in Tibet

I expect people shot by the police to be imminently threatening the life of the police. Otherwise, I expect the police to arrest the people breaking the law in order that they might face trial. Police are not judges. Police are not executioners. This is an example of a universally applied standard. If the police in the USA shot people that they believed were guilty of a crime instead of arresting them, I would be upset with American police, too.

 

I forgot to say it also includes the ones who form their opinion based on a few pictures on the internet when there is no way to confirm the source and genuinity of the pictures. You may also never know whether the pictures have been doctored or not.

 

You know what your problem is? You give a guise of fairness and objectivity when your opinions are slanted to begin with. I myself, like all people, have bias, but at least I don't pretend differently.

People/courts/the judicial system should ask questions on why a guy is shot in the back right? I agree 100%. The thing you didn't mention is that people/courts/the judicial system would also ask questions on WHY and UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCE was a guy shot in the back, neither of which were provided by Sammy Fisher.

In fact, in your original post, you expressed disbelief that this could have happened in any other way other than police brutality/massacre, incredulous at the absurdity that it may in fact, be a non-premeditated self defense. By the way, law enforcement IS allowed to use force if they are being threatened.

Not that I am making such an assertion, but your expression shows typical denial.

 

Let the truth be told!


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uSQnK5FcKas&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uSQnK5FcKas&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

I still can't come up with a plausible way to threaten someone behind you. Maybe if you have an Olympic discus that you are going to throw at their head and they are spinning into the classical windup form. Perhaps he was planning to ignite the fuse on a 19th century cannon by igniting his flatulence. These are both unlikely, but would be sufficient cause to shoot someone in the back.

And I never said it was or had to be part of a massacre. If you really think I did, could you find the quote? I do think if this guy was shot in the back, most police would consider that enough to require investigation to figure out why. Most police would operate on the assumption that it wasn't self defense until they had coherent facts why it was. And that is the position I take. It is a highly suspect wound that requires explanation.

If it is indeed a wound to the back of a monk that occurred as a part of the ongoing Tibet riots, then there is an appearance of inappropriate police conduct that needs to be examined. That is my position. It is my perception that several posters where attempting to say that shooting someone in the back by the Chinese police during the riots is no big deal and was not worthy of further examination. That is not a comforting thought to me.

 

Like I said, law enforcement is entitled to fire if fellow police officers are threatened. The case is true pretty much anywhere.

Where do you see anywhere, proof that police are not/will not investigate the incident? In fact, where do you see any motivation/stories/facts pertaining the issue?

Here is what I saw, I saw Sammy Fisher, in his usual potshot taking methods, crawled out from under the woodworks, presented a picture with which no explanations are attached.

The whole mess started with Benjerin the pictures of violence committed by Tibetans (I didn't know that wasn't allowed) along with his explanations behind it. If there was anything of which you felt the need to challenge, you and Sammy were privy to do so.

Instead, he posted a picture, alleging police brutality, when the whole situation surrounding it is shroud in mystery. Why is it that didn't ask him to provide those circumstance prior to asking for an explanation of police brutality?

 

Specifically, I entered the discussion in response to:

The poster flatly ruled out an assassination. If the posters had said, well, that is a gunshot wound to the head, but we don't know anything about it and we need more information about where it came from and when it happened... if that had been the post responding to Sam's photo, I never would have entered this thread after Sam's post.

 

I hear you. Based on the same logic, why didn't you enter the discussion when Sam said it was an 'execution'? You could have lectured Sam "that is a gunshot wound to the head, but we don't know anything about it and we need more information about where it came from and when it happened", just like how you have lectured the other poster should say his opinion. Any reason?

 

wait a minute, i could be wrong about this, but wasn't there a thread here a while ago about a man in ameican who shot dead 2 mexican guys who broke into his neighbor's house while they were fleeing? didn't the american court set him free?

 

2 US Air Marshalls shot a bipolar person from the back, while the poor sick man was running away from the plan.

Of course, that's not important. When talking about China or Chinese, there is no limit in the dirty tricks you can pull. A photo of a dead person, Chinese or not, can be claimed peaceful monk shot by Chinese police. But I would never be surprised by such characters, one of them claimed it's a well known fact that people from China are racists against blacks. That's how shameless they are. Stop trying to reason with them.

 

Yes, we are definitely in The Twilight Zone.



Impeach Bush.

 

lol, people are sick of arguing. not much news being updated. we'll see in a few days. i'm going to ask around when i go to china in a few months. see how people feel there.

 

First, IMO he should be in jail right now. I am glad to denounce that as a miscarriage of justice.

But what happened to him was exactly what I advocate happening to whoever shot the Tibetan. The guy from Pasadena went before a grand jury who reviewed the evidence from the thorough investigation. After reviewing the evidence, the grand jury decided not to bring charges.

The same thing happened to the two air marshals. The cases were thoroughly investigated and were handed to the federal attorneys who decided that at the point that the man said, "I'm going to blow up this bomb" the marshals had sufficient cause to open fire.

In both of these cases, what happened is what I advocate for whoever potentially shot the monk in the back. There were thorough and open civil investigations, and after a decision based on the facts was made the details were released to the public.

And when the American courts do something wrong, Americans on this BBS who disagree are vocal and aggressive in denouncing it. But for several of the Chinese posters, that same self-critical eye doesn't seem possible, and they don't even seem to really understand the whole principal too well. Any criticism of China is an assault which requires tit-for-tat retaliation.

 

Why do you keep ignoring the realpolitik here? The commies know the Tibetans are no match to them. Plus, they now have strong business ties to most Western countries.

Might makes right. It has always been like that. Even justice comes from the barrel of gun.

 

wait, so because they are less violent than the militants in the Palestinian Terrorities and the Northern Ireland, they are free to loot banks and kill innocent people? what kind of logic is this ?! i can understand if they are burning down government buildings but they started a race riot and murdered a specific group of people on the streets!!

 

Low violence in Tibet in the past 50 years is all Dalai's credit, it has nothing to do with Tibetan Chinese living in Tibet? It has nothing to do with PRC and other Chinese?

Sishir, we've been through this over and over. You continue to claim that Dalai has OFFERED Tibet to remain part of China, but PRC has passed the golden opportunity again and again. In fact, you have reiterated that in almost every such thread. I, and many other posters have pointed out to you, that Dalai is in no position to offer such thing. PRC territories are decided at the time of its establishment, which is recognized and protected by international community and international law. A foreigner, be it an average Joe or spiritual leader, is in no position to negotiate with a country, no matter what he/she offers.

Dalai, while young, with his supporters, accepted the regime change in China. He would have much more impact in Tibet if he hadn't broken the agreement after the serves were freed and failed in the rebel. If he succeeded then, he would have restored the theocracy. But he failed and fled from China.

I give Dalai Lama credit for his stance to condemn violent riot. But it is not a bargaining chip in a "negotiation" as you suggested.

 

Funny thing is, I find the most damage to Dalai Lama's reputation isn't whatever being said by PRC. Rather, it's his ties to CIA. That's how public opinions of him in China works.

And Chinese don't like being told who to work with by foreigners, that brings them bad memory. So, in fact, what a lot western government think they are helping the situation doesn't really help.

 

It's the similar mentality of a few other posters here (SamFisher?) who perpetually hold an anti-China point of view. These folks are so predictable that I know what their stance is or basically could tell what they are going to say whenever I see a thread about China or Chinese people. Therefore, I really think this is an endless debate. Look, everyone is hypocritical to a certain extent. But the ones who try to make themselves out to be righteous while being hypocritical and biased make me want to punk.