6 ms·

I always wonder, when they catch this kind of criminals, why not shoot them on sight like they did Pablo Escobar or Osama? Special forces officer: "it was low l

I always wonder, when they catch this kind of criminals, why not shoot them on sight like they did Pablo Escobar or Osama? Special forces officer: "it was low light operation and we thought that he had a weapon so we shot him." and thats that.

dragonwriter 8y ago
Because the sanctifying aura of procedure is a cornerstone of the State’s monopoly on *legitimate violence. And because, in many cases, that procedure actually reflects real values to which the leaders of government have actual commitment even beyond the pragmatic motivation to be seen as committed.
- RHSeeger 8y ago
  People sometimes forget that, even though there are bad actors in law enforcement, there are many good actors. Those good actors are likely trying to do the right thing most of the time.
pas 8y ago
Probably to send a message to the populace, to milk the trial as a show of justice. Even if the whole thing is useless in the big scheme of incentives.
gehsty 8y ago
Always better to humiliate them in court than make a martyr. Shooting them is what the cartels do, justice would be that he is tried by a jury and sentenced under law. I can see how there could be a net benefit to shooting them on site, but you can't say for sure that the witnesses etc lives would then be safe.
- pas 8y ago
  He can be tried and sentenced in absentia. (The problem is, as long as the profit is so insanely high, and the risk is relatively low, thousans will try to take his place.)
  - gehsty 8y ago
    I think it is the pictures of a former king pin being tried sitting in a court that prosecutors want, it sends a message that no one is above the law. Being tried in absentia doesn't really tick that box.
    - michaelt 8y ago
      Also, you'd imagine witnesses (and maybe juries, judges and prosecutors) would be relatively more confident/cooperative if the guy was in custody.
    - ajbetteridge 8y ago
      "it sends a message that no one is above the law." apart from politicians, bankers, etc...
      - pas 8y ago
        Representative democracy can be done right. An independent Anticorruption Agency with investigatory and prosecutory powers irrevocably granted by the constitution, but with narrow scope, can work wonders. Of course, above a critical mass of amassed power/popularity, nothing can stop a dictator to simply do re-found the state with a new constitution, but at that point it's very much a coup anyway.
  - BslSJDIz1gqWxXq 8y ago
    I think he should be used by the governments as a sockpuppet.
- chrisweekly 8y ago
  site -> sight Teaching, not nit-picking: "shoot on sight" is the idiom here, meaning shoot as soon as target is visually confirmed. Whereas "on site" relates to location.
  - gehsty 8y ago
    This has made me chuckle. Thank you for the lesson. I need a context aware spell checker :) (it was a spelling mistake, not a lack of understanding)
timavr 8y ago
Due process and presumption of innocence. As far as US judicial system is concerned Osama and Pablo are innocent. It is always better to try people in court then kill them, because it limits the chances that someone innocent can be killed.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  I don't support the death penalty, but I'll play devil's advocate here - because it seems the trade-off in cases like this is one not-innocent-to-six-sigma person being killed, versus quite a few innocent witnesses being killed. And the nightmare for witnesses will continue after the trial, because they're never, ever, going to be safe. It's not a problem with an easy answer.
  - timavr 8y ago
    They still will hunt down the informants or anyone who might be one in case of the assasination. It is not like informants will give out the info in return for nothing. They will probably want money, witness protection and one way ticket to the USA. Also cartel knows who are the key witnesses. It is not like the El Chappo discussed his business with infinite number of people. I would say 10-20 max if not less. So they just make a list and see who is present/not present and where are their families. Though I am not even sure prosecution needs star witnesses. I don’t think there is a juror left who has no opinion on El Chappo. The bigger problem is that dealing with El Chappo, killing or otherwise, is not actually solving the problem of cartels having nearly infinite resources to pursue informants/witnesses. In a way dealing with cartel is like dealing with a state actor, but without traditional tools because they are outside the international law. The only way is legalize the whole thing to bring drug trade into legal framework. In the end the only leverage USA has is its market. So if they give market to legal entities, cartels and violence associated with them will go away.
    - i_am_nomad 8y ago
      “In the end the only leverage USA has is its market. So if they give market to legal entities, cartels and violence associated with them will go away.” Oil is legalized in the US, yet a cartel has until recently dominated that market, and OPEC’s members certainly use violence to maintain their control. The only thing displacing OPEC now isn’t a free market, it’s local production.
peteretep 8y ago
I think if you're in the business of violence you might well find the thought of sitting in a prison cell for the rest of your life scarier than dying in a shoot-out with the police
wbl 8y ago
They did not shoot Osama on sight. While that would have been legal since there was an AUMF, as a practical matter had he surrendered he would have been arrested. Extrajudicial execution is abhorrent.
- mhjas 8y ago
  As far as I know that is exactly what they did. > ‘They knew where the target was – third floor, second door on the right,’ the retired official said. ‘Go straight there. Osama was cowering and retreated into the bedroom. Two shooters followed him and opened up. Very simple, very straightforward, very professional hit.’ Some of the Seals were appalled later at the White House’s initial insistence that they had shot bin Laden in self-defence, the retired official said. ‘Six of the Seals’ finest, most experienced NCOs, faced with an unarmed elderly civilian, had to kill him in self-defence? The house was shabby and bin Laden was living in a cell with bars on the window and barbed wire on the roof. The rules of engagement were that if bin Laden put up any opposition they were authorised to take lethal action. But if they suspected he might have some means of opposition, like an explosive vest under his robe, they could also kill him. So here’s this guy in a mystery robe and they shot him. It’s not because he was reaching for a weapon. The rules gave them absolute authority to kill the guy.’ The later White House claim that only one or two bullets were fired into his head was ‘bullshit’, the retired official said. ‘The squad came through the door and obliterated him. As the Seals say, “We kicked his ass and took his gas.”’ https://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden https://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of... A defining moment for the US for sure. It showed the war on terror wasn't excusable and that even the most conscious and educated president would still be a hypocrite when it really mattered. It has been downhill ever since with Russia and China doing largely whatever they want.
  - adventured 8y ago
    > It has been downhill ever since with Russia and China doing largely whatever they want. That's a riot. Is that before or after China annexed Tibet and culturally destroyed it? Before or after they annexed Hong Kong entirely against the will of the people of Hong Kong? Before or after Russia annexed most of Eastern Europe and held it hostage for nearly half a century? Poland for example is a very large nation, it has only been free of Russia for less than 30 years now. China and Russia do whatever they want, insofar as they can. That will never change and it's true of all great power nations throughout history.
pimmen 8y ago
Because he never gave people a trial before he ordered them killed. We need to be better than him if we want to judge him.
maxlybbert 8y ago
There are countries that are so enlightened that they don’t officially have capital punishment, but the police are rumored to not try that hard to capture certain criminals alive (not all countries without capital punishment are like this). I don’t consider that progress, but not everyone agrees with me.
weberc2 8y ago
That reminds me that this exchange happened: https://mobile.twitter.com/mchooyah/status/1038140646056501251 https://mobile.twitter.com/mchooyah/status/10381406460565012...
stef25 8y ago
One of the few things that scares those type of criminals is being jailed by los Yankees. In their home country they probably assume they can always use relentless bribing for more favourable conditions and a possible release. In the US, forget it.

dragonwriter 8y ago

Because the sanctifying aura of procedure is a cornerstone of the State’s monopoly on *legitimate violence. And because, in many cases, that procedure actually reflects real values to which the leaders of government have actual commitment even beyond the pragmatic motivation to be seen as committed.

RHSeeger 8y ago
People sometimes forget that, even though there are bad actors in law enforcement, there are many good actors. Those good actors are likely trying to do the right thing most of the time.

pas 8y ago

Probably to send a message to the populace, to milk the trial as a show of justice. Even if the whole thing is useless in the big scheme of incentives.

gehsty 8y ago

Always better to humiliate them in court than make a martyr. Shooting them is what the cartels do, justice would be that he is tried by a jury and sentenced under law. I can see how there could be a net benefit to shooting them on site, but you can't say for sure that the witnesses etc lives would then be safe.

pas 8y ago
He can be tried and sentenced in absentia. (The problem is, as long as the profit is so insanely high, and the risk is relatively low, thousans will try to take his place.)
- gehsty 8y ago
  I think it is the pictures of a former king pin being tried sitting in a court that prosecutors want, it sends a message that no one is above the law. Being tried in absentia doesn't really tick that box.
  - michaelt 8y ago
    Also, you'd imagine witnesses (and maybe juries, judges and prosecutors) would be relatively more confident/cooperative if the guy was in custody.
  - ajbetteridge 8y ago
    "it sends a message that no one is above the law." apart from politicians, bankers, etc...
    - pas 8y ago
      Representative democracy can be done right. An independent Anticorruption Agency with investigatory and prosecutory powers irrevocably granted by the constitution, but with narrow scope, can work wonders. Of course, above a critical mass of amassed power/popularity, nothing can stop a dictator to simply do re-found the state with a new constitution, but at that point it's very much a coup anyway.
- BslSJDIz1gqWxXq 8y ago
  I think he should be used by the governments as a sockpuppet.
chrisweekly 8y ago
site -> sight Teaching, not nit-picking: "shoot on sight" is the idiom here, meaning shoot as soon as target is visually confirmed. Whereas "on site" relates to location.
- gehsty 8y ago
  This has made me chuckle. Thank you for the lesson. I need a context aware spell checker :) (it was a spelling mistake, not a lack of understanding)

timavr 8y ago

Due process and presumption of innocence. As far as US judicial system is concerned Osama and Pablo are innocent. It is always better to try people in court then kill them, because it limits the chances that someone innocent can be killed.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
I don't support the death penalty, but I'll play devil's advocate here - because it seems the trade-off in cases like this is one not-innocent-to-six-sigma person being killed, versus quite a few innocent witnesses being killed. And the nightmare for witnesses will continue after the trial, because they're never, ever, going to be safe. It's not a problem with an easy answer.
- timavr 8y ago
  They still will hunt down the informants or anyone who might be one in case of the assasination. It is not like informants will give out the info in return for nothing. They will probably want money, witness protection and one way ticket to the USA. Also cartel knows who are the key witnesses. It is not like the El Chappo discussed his business with infinite number of people. I would say 10-20 max if not less. So they just make a list and see who is present/not present and where are their families. Though I am not even sure prosecution needs star witnesses. I don’t think there is a juror left who has no opinion on El Chappo. The bigger problem is that dealing with El Chappo, killing or otherwise, is not actually solving the problem of cartels having nearly infinite resources to pursue informants/witnesses. In a way dealing with cartel is like dealing with a state actor, but without traditional tools because they are outside the international law. The only way is legalize the whole thing to bring drug trade into legal framework. In the end the only leverage USA has is its market. So if they give market to legal entities, cartels and violence associated with them will go away.
  - i_am_nomad 8y ago
    “In the end the only leverage USA has is its market. So if they give market to legal entities, cartels and violence associated with them will go away.” Oil is legalized in the US, yet a cartel has until recently dominated that market, and OPEC’s members certainly use violence to maintain their control. The only thing displacing OPEC now isn’t a free market, it’s local production.

peteretep 8y ago

I think if you're in the business of violence you might well find the thought of sitting in a prison cell for the rest of your life scarier than dying in a shoot-out with the police

wbl 8y ago

They did not shoot Osama on sight. While that would have been legal since there was an AUMF, as a practical matter had he surrendered he would have been arrested. Extrajudicial execution is abhorrent.

mhjas 8y ago
As far as I know that is exactly what they did. > ‘They knew where the target was – third floor, second door on the right,’ the retired official said. ‘Go straight there. Osama was cowering and retreated into the bedroom. Two shooters followed him and opened up. Very simple, very straightforward, very professional hit.’ Some of the Seals were appalled later at the White House’s initial insistence that they had shot bin Laden in self-defence, the retired official said. ‘Six of the Seals’ finest, most experienced NCOs, faced with an unarmed elderly civilian, had to kill him in self-defence? The house was shabby and bin Laden was living in a cell with bars on the window and barbed wire on the roof. The rules of engagement were that if bin Laden put up any opposition they were authorised to take lethal action. But if they suspected he might have some means of opposition, like an explosive vest under his robe, they could also kill him. So here’s this guy in a mystery robe and they shot him. It’s not because he was reaching for a weapon. The rules gave them absolute authority to kill the guy.’ The later White House claim that only one or two bullets were fired into his head was ‘bullshit’, the retired official said. ‘The squad came through the door and obliterated him. As the Seals say, “We kicked his ass and took his gas.”’ https://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden https://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of... A defining moment for the US for sure. It showed the war on terror wasn't excusable and that even the most conscious and educated president would still be a hypocrite when it really mattered. It has been downhill ever since with Russia and China doing largely whatever they want.
- adventured 8y ago
  > It has been downhill ever since with Russia and China doing largely whatever they want. That's a riot. Is that before or after China annexed Tibet and culturally destroyed it? Before or after they annexed Hong Kong entirely against the will of the people of Hong Kong? Before or after Russia annexed most of Eastern Europe and held it hostage for nearly half a century? Poland for example is a very large nation, it has only been free of Russia for less than 30 years now. China and Russia do whatever they want, insofar as they can. That will never change and it's true of all great power nations throughout history.

pimmen 8y ago

Because he never gave people a trial before he ordered them killed. We need to be better than him if we want to judge him.

maxlybbert 8y ago

There are countries that are so enlightened that they don’t officially have capital punishment, but the police are rumored to not try that hard to capture certain criminals alive (not all countries without capital punishment are like this). I don’t consider that progress, but not everyone agrees with me.

weberc2 8y ago

That reminds me that this exchange happened: https://mobile.twitter.com/mchooyah/status/1038140646056501251 https://mobile.twitter.com/mchooyah/status/10381406460565012...

stef25 8y ago

One of the few things that scares those type of criminals is being jailed by los Yankees. In their home country they probably assume they can always use relentless bribing for more favourable conditions and a possible release. In the US, forget it.