Star Trek's Five Most Devastating Sci-Fi Environmental Disasters

[DonIago]

What would you have had Sisko do instead?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

DonIago

Already answered:
"As for Sisko, I can tell you what he did NOT have the RIGHT to do - kill human beings.
You see, a policeman doesn't have the right to kill thiefs that pose no threat to him, just because they are running away."

If a policeman's only choices are letting a thief get away and killing this thief in cold blood, then the correct/moral/legal course of action is to let the thief get away.

 

[DonIago]

What if they were a serial killer instead of a thief?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

He's not a serial killer until a judge and jury find him guilty of it - 'innocent until proven guilty', DonIago.
Which means NO, the policeman does NOT have the right to kill the suspect.
If he shoots - continuing to do so so with future suspects - the policeman will become a serial killer himself.

DonIago - a policeman DOES NOT HAVE the right to be judge, jury and executioner. Do you understand the concept?

About the maquis as serial killers.
Are you trying to argue that they endangered thousands of lives on the cardassian colony they attacked?
In this case, Sisko endangered thousands of lives of federation citizens, HIS PEOPLE, when he poisoned the federation colony.
At least the maquis attacked their enemy; Sisko's deed is FAR WORSE.

 

[Timo]

DonIago - a policeman DOES NOT HAVE the right to be judge, jury and executioner.

A soldier does, though. He's not out there to deal with "justice". He's out there to eliminate threats to national security. Those threats don't have to wear uniforms or carry conventional weapons. And if something he just killed is retroactively determined not to have been much of a threat after all, well, that's collateral damage.

A soldier is never limited to killing in self-defense per se. He's expected to kill in offense. Except on certain specific types of mission where special restraint is to be exhibited, because the best way for him to protect the nation may be to die in the hands of the enemy - surviving through killing the enemy might endanger the nation. But that's a rather extreme situation, and generally the nation will judge in favor of the soldier who kills in self-defense.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[DonIago]

Aside from pointing out that yelling at me is hardly a way to engage in productive discourse (I'm assuming that was the point of the bold-face), I think Timo covered it rather well.

I hardly think Starfleet would have settled for "Well, I could have attacked their ships, but I might have killed a few of them, so I let them go on their merry way poisoning other planets."

 

[T'Girl]

The one which just proved it had no chance of ever scratching defiant and was retreating.

Retreating is just another term for "maneuvering across the battlefield."

In February 1991, the Iraqi military attempted to redeploy their army from Kuwait into Iraq using two highways. In other words retreating. The US Marines dropped anti-tank mines into the roads ahead of them, then destroyed the vehicles at the rear of the two military columns boxing them in. The US military then spent the next ten hours bombing and strafing the convoys. Out of the two convoys of some 2,700 vehicles, approximately 450 people surrendered.

The Maquis should have surrendered to Sisko, they would have lived.

Sisko deprived the Maquis of trained personnel, equipment and a valuable raider. You make it sound like Sisko sank a cruise ship sailing out of Miami harbor.

'Our heroes' are supposed to ONLY kill in self-defense.

Where did you get this?

"You see, a policeman doesn't have the right to kill thiefs that pose no threat to him, just because they are running away."

Except Starfleet aren't the police and the Maquis aren't thieves. Starfleet is the armed forces of the United Federation of Planets and the Maquis are a armed combatant. The Maquis didn't just steal a loaf of bread.

If a policeman's only choices are letting a thief get away and killing this thief in cold blood, then the correct/moral/legal course of action is to let the thief get away.

The police are allowed to shoot fleeing felons, if necessary in the back with their wrists behind their back in handcuffs. If a criminal is escaping that isn't "cold blood." A innocent person just standing on the sidewalk, that would be cold blood.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Timo

The maquis were federation citizens wanted for comitting an infraction. NOT enemy combatants; and there was no state of war.
The military has no jurisdiction; the federal police is entitled to deal with the matter.
And the federal police does NOT have the right to be judge, jury and executioner.

T'Girl

"The police are allowed to shoot fleeing felons, if necessary in the back with their wrists behind their back in handcuffs. If a criminal is escaping that isn't "cold blood." A innocent person just standing on the sidewalk, that would be cold blood."


What are you talking about?
The policemen have the right to kill in cold blood fleeing persons with their hands handcuffed? Whose guilt was not established (making them 'innocent until proven guilty' during a trial)? Who pose no threat to the life of the policemen?
Since when, T'Girl?

If that were the case, you could very well be transformed from "an innocent person just standing on the sidewalk" to a "fleeing felon" and killed in cold blood, at the whim of a policeman, just because he felt like target practicing that day. All without any consequences for said policeman.

Is this how you imagine freedom and your rights and liberties: 'innocent until proven guilty', 'due trial', etc, etc?

 

[DonIago]

Why are you assuming Starfleet regulations are necessarily analogous to either the police or the modern military?

Also I'm pretty sure the Maquis weren't Federation citizens precisely because they'd chosen not to be Federation citizens by continuing to live in the DMZ knowing the risks, and were classified as enemy combatants once they began attacking Starfleet vessels.

 

[T'Girl]

What are you talking about?
The policemen have the right to kill in cold blood fleeing persons with their hands handcuffed? Whose guilt was not established (making them 'innocent until proven guilty' during a trial)? Who pose no threat to the life of the policemen?
Since when, T'Girl? If that were the case, you could very well be transformed from "an innocent person just standing on the sidewalk" to a "fleeing felon" and killed in cold blood, at the whim of a policeman, just because he felt like target practicing that day. All without any consequences for said policeman. Is this how you imagine freedom and your rights and liberties: 'innocent until proven guilty', 'due trial', etc, etc?

The policemen have the right, Yes they do, after determining that they possess judgment, society gives them this right.

to kill in cold blood If a criminal is "fleeing" then it is not "cold blood," the police officer is meeting action with action. Therefor not cold blood.

Whose guilt was not established There are certain criteria that would have to be met is the police officer's mind prior to employing potentially deadly force, there would be a official standard on which a judgment or decision would be based.

at the whim of a policeman The conscious decision would be based upon the officer's training and experience.

he felt like target practicing that day He felt that the individual was a serious threat or danger to the community that the police officer has sworn to protect.

Is this how you imagine freedom and your rights and liberties Are my rights being protected? Yes, protect by the police. This is why YOU ProtoAvatar hire THEM in the first place. (You hired them by being a member of society)

'innocent until proven guilty' I'll remind you, that you stipulated their guilt in your post. That was already a given.

There is a difference between being a criminal and a convict. You can be a criminal without every being arrested or seeing the inside of a courtroom, being a criminal is a product of your actions. Being a convict means you've been convicted of a offense. You stated in your post that the person in question was a "Thief." not a "Suspected Thief," implying that their innocent or guilt had already been determined. If (hypothetically) a different "thief" was a armed bank robber who had just in fact robbed a bank, shot two tellers, another police office and was running towards their freedom, under those givens yes I believe any police officer would be justified in shooting the "suspect" in the back more than once. If the same suspect was captured and in handcuffs, then broke away and again was running towards their freedom, a police officer would be justified in shooting them in the back while they were wearing handcuffs.

If, on the other hand, it was a twelve year old who had just stolen a twikee, then no shooting.

Also I'm pretty sure the Maquis weren't Federation citizens precisely because they'd chosen not to be Federation citizens by continuing to live in the DMZ knowing the risks, and were classified as enemy combatants once they began attacking Starfleet vessels.

Official renouncing their citizenship sounds like something a member of the Maquis would do.