Man shot dead in london

[WhiteKnight]

A man has been shot dead on a tube train, from what i have read he was chased onto a tube train by 4 plain clothed police who jumped on him and shot him 5 times.


more info try www.bbc.com

[northernlights]

I came to this part of the forums to start the same thread but you beat me to it.

This is a little disturbing. By all witness accounts I've read the man was chased into a subway, tripped/was pushed onto the ground, had several undercover agents subdue him and was THEN shot to death by 5 rounds.

If it's found that the man was carrying explosives or a detonator on him then their actions are understandable but otherwise it seems an awful lot like murder.

[Freemason]

Turns out he wasn't involved in terrorism. Yet he was dressed in the way suicide bombers dress, ran from the cops into a subway and so on. He screwed up bad and paid the price. Too bad he wasn't a terrorist though. They deserve to be shot down like dogs.

[WhiteKnight]

people are know callling for the policeman that shoot him to be charged with murder, what is going on, this people chased what they thought was a bomber that could go off at any time, risking there lives, jumped on top off him, not knowing if the bomb would go off, and killed him, they should be heros.

i hate how people like to look back hindsight is always 20/20. they made the right chose, it was a hard chose, but it needed be made, what if he had been a bomber and the police had not shoot him, (if they had followed there old engagment rules they would have not been alowed to shoot him) and a bomb had gone off, would anyone accept them saying, "sorry we did not stop him, he MAY not have been a bomber, his family may have taken use to court", come on if it smells like s##t and it looks like s##t you have to treat it as s##t till you know otherwise.

[northernlights]

people are know callling for the policeman that shoot him to be charged with murder, what is going on, this people chased what they thought was a bomber that could go off at any time, risking there lives, jumped on top off him, not knowing if the bomb would go off, and killed him, they should be heros.

i hate how people like to look back hindsight is always 20/20. they made the right chose, it was a hard chose, but it needed be made, what if he had been a bomber and the police had not shoot him, (if they had followed there old engagment rules they would have not been alowed to shoot him) and a bomb had gone off, would anyone accept them saying, "sorry we did not stop him, he MAY not have been a bomber, his family may have taken use to court", come on if it smells like s##t and it looks like s##t you have to treat it as s##t till you know otherwise.

I don't think you can make that judgement unless you know exactly what information they were going on. If the only thing tying him to the bombings was the fact that he left a house that was under surveillance, then murder has been comitted. If he did in fact have 'wires dangling from his jacket' as I read somewhere it might be justified.

Either way, you would think that with 2-3 of the bombers still running free, if this guy was connected to the bombings he would be a valuable interrogation suspect...

Either way, they made the wrong choice and they know they did. It will be interesting to see if an agent is charged.

[SaroDarksbane]

The police were incredibly wrong on this one.

1. He's from Brazil. Slight climate difference. If I was used to Brazillian weather, I might wear a coat in London too.
2. The officers were in street clothes and waving a gun. I would run too if four men waving guns started running towards me.
3. They tackled him, and THEN shot him. Why? He was already subdued. And they didn't shoot him once, they shot him FIVE TIMES.
4. They were following him because they were watching him and thought he was a threat. But they didn't take him down till he was in the subway system? Nice police work there.

"We think he's a suicide bomber. Should we arrest him?"
"Nah, let him leave his house and get to the subway. We'll try to get him there."
"But isn't that dangerous if we are correct in believing he's a terrorist?"
"Don't worry about it, if he's not a terrorist he'll immediately drop to the ground and surrender when he sees a bunch of random guys brandshing guns run towards him."

[Elly]

1. I think after living here (working as an electrician) for three years he'd have been acclimatized by now.

2. They flashed police identification at him and he was told 'stop police' and then began to run and ran into the station. Later after he'd jumped over the turnstiles in the tube station 'stop or we'll shoot' and numerous times down the stairs, through the tunnels out onto the platform. Many members of the public have testified to that in news reports. Incidentally, none of the public (locals and tourists) spoken to after the incident said they were in any doubt that the persuers were policemen.

3. Tackling a bomber won't stop them hitting the detonator button, wherever that may be concealed. A lot of detonators run down the sleeve of the jacket into a small device concealed in the palm, you wouldn't even see it unless you knew to look for it. You wouldn't see it being pressed either. Certainly a bomber is not open to discussion of demands or debate. They've already resigned themselves to their own death, once collared, they'll just detonate ready or not, regardless if they've reached their original target. If they're surrounded by policemen then that's a bonus.

How many seconds would give? Given the fact you've chased him, you know he knows you're a copper and he's thrown himself onto a waiting train. It's also not 24 hours since the failed bombers boarded trains at the very same station. The carriage is also full of the public. Weighing it all up, I'd say they did the right thing at the time, even though it turned out to be the wrong thing. Incidentally, since the bombs there have 250 incidents where the police have had to make that same decision.

4. It was only when he continued began to run, that they determined something very serious was wrong.

Who knew he had an expired visa and that's probably why he was running from the police.

Three of the failed bombers from last Thursday returned to their flats to pick up more explosives before leaving for who knows where. I guess we have to just wait to see where that is.

[DrunkCajun]

I think the real mistake was in not picking him up sooner.

Why wait for him to get to the Tube and realizing that he should be stopped then? If he had been strapped with a bomb and was truly a terrorist, do you really think that he wouldn't have set off the bomb the moment he was tackled to the ground and restrained by the police, killing them and anyone within the blast radius?

I just don't understand it. They let him on a bus--haven't there been something like 5 bombs either detonated or planted on buses in London in the past two weeks? Why let it get that far? Stop him as he leaves his apartment so you can a) capture him alive rather than firing 7 rounds into the back of his head, b) not endanger the entire tube station in the process.

Just my $0.02. I think the police screwed up bigtime on this one. Any number of things should have been done differently.

[SaroDarksbane]

1. I think after living here (working as an electrician) for three years he'd have been acclimatized by now.
Three years isn't a particularly long time, especially if he'd been living in Brazil for much longer. I've been in Florida for 5 months now, and the heat/humidity hasn't even started to come close to feeling normal. I can't even imagine what Brazil is like compared to London.
3. Tackling a bomber won't stop them hitting the detonator button,
But shooting them in the head will? If he's got the detonator in his hand, shooting him could very well trigger the explosive. If he doesn't have it in his hand, with 4 cops on him you'd think they could have grabbed his arms. And if you are so concerned about him detonating it that you have to shoot him, why tackle him, and then put a gun to his head and pull the trigger five times?4. It was only when he continued began to run, that they determined something very serious was wrong.
If they wanted to arrest him, they should have arrested him when he left the house (they had him under surveillance), or arrested him when they were near him. Watching him from a distance and letting him get close enough to run to the bus only to flash your guns at him from said distance so that he either:
A: Has no idea who you are and runs.
B: Is a suicide bomber, and will now take off running since you aren't close enough to stop him.

That's just dumb.

If he HAD been a suicide bomber, he could have detonated himself long before they finally tackled him. All in all, a very bad play for the police.

EDIT:
I think the real mistake was in not picking him up sooner.

Why wait for him to get to the Tube and realizing that he should be stopped then? If he had been strapped with a bomb and was truly a terrorist, do you really think that he wouldn't have set off the bomb the moment he was tackled to the ground and restrained by the police, killing them and anyone within the blast radius?

I just don't understand it. They let him on a bus--haven't there been something like 5 bombs either detonated or planted on buses in London in the past two weeks? Why let it get that far? Stop him as he leaves his apartment so you can a) capture him alive rather than firing 7 rounds into the back of his head, b) not endanger the entire tube station in the process.
Exactly.

[Elly]

DrunkCajun

"do you really think that he wouldn't have set off the bomb the moment he was tackled to the ground and restrained by the police, killing them and anyone within the blast radius? "

Err no, that's my point here.

SaroDarksbane

Sorry, no, 3 years is plenty time to get acclimatized and upper 20's is hardly big wooly jacket weather. I used to live between Indonesia and the UK and it wouldn't take me more than a month to get back into the swing of the weather when jumping between the two.

I think they tackled him to control the shooting rather than trying to shoot at him inside a crowded train. In the head I imagine because they risk detonating the bomb concealed on the body if they go for the torso.

As I understand it they didn't wish to arrest him when he left the house. I don't know what changed between the house and then asking him to stop. Obvioulsy something changed that we're not privy to yet. As I said before if they did act without any thought or consideration 250 other people would have been shot between the first bombings and yesterday.

[SaroDarksbane]

Sorry, no, 3 years is plenty time to get acclimatized and upper 20's is hardly big wooly jacket weather.
I'll let you know in a couple more years if I can stand to go outside during the day without it having rained first.
I think they tackled him to control the shooting rather than trying to shoot at him inside a crowded train. In the head I imagine because they risk detonating the bomb concealed on the body if they go for the torso.
If he was a bomber, he could have detonated himself before they tackled him. He was already on the train, right? If he actually WAS a bomber, waiting to shoot until he had been tackled would have gotten them all killed before it happened. The fact that he hadn't blown himself up by the time they tackled him while he was on the train should have been a clue, I think.
As I understand it they didn't wish to arrest him when he left the house. I don't know what changed between the house and then asking him to stop. Obvioulsy something changed that we're not privy to yet.
As soon as they can fill in that rather large gap, maybe I'll change my mind.

"You watched him for 26 minutes before you gave him an opportunity to run by identifying yourselves from a distance? Why didn't you just arrest him beforehand, or wait till you could secure him before identifying yourselves?"
" . . . Um . . . It's a secret."

/cynicism

[DrunkCajun]

I think they tackled him to control the shooting rather than trying to shoot at him inside a crowded train. In the head I imagine because they risk detonating the bomb concealed on the body if they go for the torso.

That makes it so much worse. They tackled him to hold him prone in order to more easily execute him? That's kinda what it sounds like you're saying. Tackle him to keep him off the train, fine, but I still don't understand the need to fire 7 rounds into the back of his head and one into his shoulder. As I said in the other OTF thread, I think the police are there to protect innocent civilians. Anytime an innocent civilian dies, it's a failure on the part of the authorities. Anytime an innocent civilian dies by the hands of the police, I think it's downright criminal.

There are procedures and rules in place for how to handle criminals in such situations. Restraining them, slowing them down, preventing them from reaching the train might all be among them. I'm not familiar with any nation in the world in which the rule is to physically restrain a criminal in order to more easily execute him.

If the police had any chance of stopping him without killing him, it is their job to do so, even if it threatens their own lives. The police are paid to be put in harm's way. That's their job. Instead of restraining him perhaps they should have emptied a clip into his legs to stop him. Anything would have been better than tackling him and holding him while emptying a clip into the back of his frightened head.

Sorry I'm beating this horse so much--I find this to be extremely disconcerting. The very governments democracies decry are the ones who would rather bring in an innocent corpse than put a police officer in danger. Fact of the matter is that there were any number of other ways to handle this situation. The police had marksmen ready and watching this individual, not to mention 30 cops following him. Couldn't one of them managed to shoot him in the leg and slowed him enough to prevent him from entering the tube station?

As I understand it they didn't wish to arrest him when he left the house. I don't know what changed between the house and then asking him to stop. Obvioulsy something changed that we're not privy to yet. As I said before if they did act without any thought or consideration 250 other people would have been shot between the first bombings and yesterday.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707480,00.html

They could have detained him before he boarded the bus and decided not to, instead potentially risking the lives of every human being riding on that bus in the hopes that he might give them more evidence.

An excerpt:

A witness remembers one of the Scotland Yard team screaming into a radio as they were running. Mr Ruston thought the man that they were chasing “looked Asian” as he tumbled on to a waiting Northern Line train.

Less than a minute later Mr Menezes was pinned to the floor of the carriage by two men while a third officer fired five shots into the base of his skull.

From another article that I happen to agree with:

Certainly, the police are right to implement a policy of shoot-to-kill if they are absolutely certain that they are gunning down a bomber who is about to commit mass murder.

But if they have even the slightest doubt about their target, they are taking us down a route that leads to the sort of trigger-happy police state that we have always associated with corrupt Third World regimes.

In our attempt to deal with the brain-washed murderous fruit-cases who are now threatening us, we simply must not allow them to lure us into abandoning our own ethics and standards of behaviour.
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/opinion/viewarticle.aspx?id=266609

From where I'm sitting, it looks as though people are willing to apply a looser standard to the enforcement of terrorism than other crimes. People seem willing to allow the police a lot of room for error and allow them to shoot without certainty if they have a hunch.

I can't imagine a more dangerous response to terrorism.


I'll be the first to admit my views are usually controversial. However, I love freedom, democracy, and the rights associated with it more than anything else out there. I can't imagine ever living someplace without those rights again--especially since I grew up in a place with a lot of limitations on those rights, and know something about what it's like. Even what seem like small sacrifices in order to combat terrorism can soften people to such things. It desensitizes us to what is acceptable and what is not. I'm of the mind that I'd rather live in a country where a bomb goes off from time to time, and know that I don't have to be afraid of the police, than live in a country where I know bombs won't go off, but also knowing that if I flinch the wrong way around a police officer or happen to be wearing clothes out of season, I could be shot to death by those who were meant to protect me.

Perhaps I'm more desensitized to terrorism than most. I was in class in 5th grade sitting next to two of my Israeli friends when the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires was bombed by terrorists and Mossad agents burst into our classroom to escort my friends to safety (leaving the rest of us at school and wondering who was going to protect us). I was in the country a few years later when a Jewish cultural center was leveled by terrorists. I was two degrees removed from people at the American embassy in Kenya when it was bombed, and similarly on 9/11 I was at a college where many of the students' parents lived and worked in New York City (some in the WTC).

To me, I find the prospect of a bomb going off during my evening commute home on the metro less frightening than the idea that the men armed with M-16s who now patrol it have the right to shoot and kill anyone they so much as suspect to be dangerous.

EDIT: Politics and caffeine don't mix. Friends don't let friends drink and debate. Back to work for me! :teeth:

[Elly]

"The fact that he hadn't blown himself up by the time they tackled him while he was on the train should have been a clue, I think."

Yes, good point. They should have known by that point that he wasn't a threat, that he was running for some other reason. If the inquest doesn't punish them then that's an area of the marksman training they'll need to revisit. Clues and things.

"You watched him for 26 minutes before you gave him an opportunity to run by identifying yourselves from a distance? Why didn't you just arrest him beforehand, or wait till you could secure him before identifying yourselves?"
" . . . Um . . . It's a secret."

Aye, that's true, they should have arrested him before he got into the station or better still jumped unawares. Really, instead of surveying the house they would have been much better to wait until people left the house and arrest them then and there. Just to be the safe side. Sloppy.

[Elly]

DrunkCajun


That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if they shoot into the crowd they risk taking out an innocent person and sending the crowd into a screaming panic-striken frenzy. I would imagine that's standard policy in any situation, not just when dealing with terrorists. It's probably preferrable to shoot a bomber in the head from a distance, rather than diving ontop of them but I do realise that can take some of the blast if they fail to prevent them detonating it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Anytime an innocent civilian dies, it's a failure on the part of the authorities. Anytime an innocent civilian dies by the hands of the police, I think it's downright criminal.

To me, I find the prospect of a bomb going off during my evening commute home on the metro less frightening than the idea that the men armed with M-16s who now patrol it have the right to shoot and kill anyone they so much as suspect to be dangerous.


/Agreed. Police being able to kill civvies (even if dangerous) could lead toward further legislation limiting civil freedoms.

[Dark Knight]

Guns are rare in England - I'm English; we were talking about this today in my office...

Unanimously the opinion was:

1) You do not run from someone pointing a gun at you.
2) You under no circumstances run from someone shouting POLICE and pointing a gun at you.
3) You REALLY dont run straight to the site of a suicide bombing, like a lunatic, following the events of point 2.

While the people (anticipating more?) getting shot in this way remain people running from armed police, because they have expired visas(!),and towards recent scenes of terrorist incidents, little sympathy can be expected from the British public.

In fact, from the English people I've spoken to you are more likely to hear comments along the lines of "what the hell did he expect?".

As to the question of why he wasn't apprehended sooner - by that line of thought Police wouldn't be able to get any of the information they surely obtain via following suspects.

This of course, all assumes that the police declared themselves. But even so; as I said before; guns are rare in England and there is about zero chance of being apprehended in the street by "random people with guns" - which is a commonly appreciated factoid of English life.

You can also see the quality of the relatives of this guy "he wasn't running he was...he was...he was... playing a game of chase" (see link) (he was....mid 20's?).


There's always room to improve police procedures, but IMO this should serve as a cautionary tale to common-sense lacking visa-dodgers with little topical awareness.

[Ash Housewares]

Guns are rare in England - I'm English; we were talking about this today in my office...

Unanimously the opinion was:

1) You do not run from someone pointing a gun at you.

how did you arrive at that?

[PlagueBearer]

how did you arrive at that?

His logic seems wonky to me, too, but it's pretty clear what he means.

In England, only the police have guns.

The men he was running from had guns.

Therefore, the men he was running from were police.

It's interesting to me that it's easier to get explosives into England than it is to get guns in there.

[Ash Housewares]

His logic seems wonky to me, too, but it's pretty clear what he means.

In England, only the police have guns.

The men he was running from had guns.

Therefore, the men he was running from were police.

It's interesting to me that it's easier to get explosives into England than it is to get guns in there.

I was under the impression that english police normally don't carry guns

[Suicidal Zebra]

I was under the impression that english police normally don't carry guns

There are ones that do, both plain-clothed and ones with 'Police' blazed across their flack-jacket. So indeed uncommon, but not so rare that one should think 'that's not a cop, he's got a gun'. Additionally they should always identify themselves as 'Armed Police' when calling for a person to stop.

Also, they are not generally trained to conserve ammunition when going for a 'kill' (rather than a wounding), and so it is unlikely that the actual number of bullet hits has any real relevence to this case.

And that is all I am saying on this subject.

[Gaza0469]

The guy was an idiot.

Fact remains that plain clothed men showed ID and asked him to stop. He ran.

London is in a state of high alert due to previous bombing attempts.

Why the hell would you run? Thats just the most insane thing to do, it defies basic logic.

Anytime police tell me to stop , I stop. Part of being a citizen is obeying the law, the police are the caretakers of that law - and if you are asked to stop you are required to do so.

He could of proved his innocence straight away then ran to go do what ever he was doing. But running from armed police while your city is in a heightened state of alert is just plain stupid.

I feel sorry for the guys family/friends - but police must weigh it up

One life V the lives of many

Its not a hard or a difficult mathematical problem.

From the cops point of view , if you shouted police, freeze and the guy runs away what conclusion can you draw other than this guy must be a terrorist because he is trying to get away, and get away towards the subway.

Like Elly said Terrorist can store denotators anywhere, its not worthwhile risking searching him for 5-10 minutes, in case he does have a bomb.

Can you imagine if he was a terrorirst, the police decided to search him and he blew up the subway killing 500 people.

The first thing you would say is "London has a shoot to kill policy why the hell was that not exectuted, why didnt the police shoot him when he was obviously running away."

The police did the right thing, they acted within the confounds of the law.


A good thing has come of this though - now terrorists know that if they try to harm innocent lives and they are found they will get F$$%$#d up which is exactly the message these spinless F$#%$%$ds need, it has however taken an innocent life to get this message out.


If the police had any chance of stopping him without killing him, it is their job to do so, even if it threatens their own lives. The police are paid to be put in harm's way.

Paid to be put in harms way yes, not paid to be in needless grave danger. Obviously the police had monitored his actions for some time so he was highly suspect, Im sure with whatever intelligence the police had gathered they must of had a high degree of certaincy that this was there man. We dont pay police enough to put themselves in senseless danger. Being in the police force is not an easy line of work. Having comrades killed, being exposed to situations of extreme gore, its one of the greatest tests of human mental strength, and for all that society repays you buy giving you a mediocre paycheck.

Put yourself in the cops shoes - He believes this guy is a terrorist he is behaving like one, your heart is racing you chase him into a subway - flash backs of last week are racing through your mind - here is a chance for someone you believe to be a terrorist to perhaps blow up another station kill more ppl - this is heightened by the fact that you have friends injured in last weeks attack, you glance and see the faces of innocent children, women all who may be victim to this terrorist.

Could this guy be innocent? maybe - could he be a terrorist - likely. Can you deal with knowing that 500 ppl might die if you dont act? what choice will you make, your police training tells you that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Those needs may even outweigh yours ---

[DrunkCajun]

The guy was an idiot.

Fact remains that plain clothed men showed ID and asked him to stop. He ran.

Gaza, the man is from a country where the police take target practice on homeless children in the streets, judges can be bought for shockingly little, and anyone who pulls a gun on you, police officer or not, isn't likely to not use it. While I understand that to us it seems obvious what to do in that situation, the fact of the matter is that anyone suddenly realizing a dozen or more men brandishing weapons are chasing them is under immediate duress. Add to that stresses of being on an expired work visa abroad and a lifetime of conditioning to not trust the police, much less anyone with a gun, and I can totally understand his reaction. I myself am very skittish around police even in the United States because I moved to a country when I was 10 where I was taught to treat the police with more skepticism than suspicious-looking strangers. I to this day will go out of my way to cross the street away from a police officer without thinking about it.

London is in a state of high alert due to previous bombing attempts.

Why the hell would you run? Thats just the most insane thing to do, it defies basic logic.

Granted. So do a lot of other things people do under extreme duress, however.

Anytime police tell me to stop , I stop. Part of being a citizen is obeying the law, the police are the caretakers of that law - and if you are asked to stop you are required to do so.

Fair enough--see above.

He could of proved his innocence straight away then ran to go do what ever he was doing. But running from armed police while your city is in a heightened state of alert is just plain stupid.

That's the thing. In his country, it doesn't always matter if you're innocent or not. "Proof" doesn't mean diddly.

I feel sorry for the guys family/friends - but police must weigh it up

One life V the lives of many

Its not a hard or a difficult mathematical problem.

Fact of the matter is the police screwed the pooch. They had plenty of time to stop him. If they were concerned about the lives of many, they would not have let him onto a bus. Instead they followed him while he took a bus ride, never stopping him.

From the cops point of view , if you shouted police, freeze and the guy runs away what conclusion can you draw other than this guy must be a terrorist because he is trying to get away, and get away towards the subway.

Understandably--but the police aren't the judge and jury, and this is the exact reason. The police are not the ones who are on the streets to dole out punishment. They are there to bring people to justice. This man was not brought to justice, and no efforts were made to bring him to justice.

Can you imagine if he was a terrorirst, the police decided to search him and he blew up the subway killing 500 people.

It would still be the police's fault for letting him onto the bus, or even out of his apartment to begin with.

The police did the right thing, they acted within the confounds of the law.

I disagree, though I'll admit I don't know much about British law. Had this occured in the United States you can bet there would be a lot of questions being asked. I would absolutely shocked not to see some sort of legal ruling on the case if it had happened in the US.

A good thing has come of this though - now terrorists know that if they try to harm innocent lives and they are found they will get F$$%$#d up which is exactly the message these spinless F$#%$%$ds need, it has however taken an innocent life to get this message out.

They also now know that the police won't bother to stop them until it's probably too late, that the police will let them ride the bus, and might even let them manage to dive into a train--any of which would provide the terrorist with ample opportunity to murder dozens of innocents.

Obviously the police had monitored his actions for some time so he was highly suspect, Im sure with whatever intelligence the police had gathered they must of had a high degree of certaincy that this was there man.

Unfortunately, Gaza, this is where you're wrong. If you read some of the articles I linked, it's fairly clear that the police were monitoring a set of apartment buildings, and happened to notice this poor chap leaving one of them. He had dark skin, wore a coat and had a bag, and despite the fact that he did not match any of the descriptions of the suspects, he was immediately labelled a terrorist. 30 police officers started to trail him, and made the on-the-spot decision not to detain him straight away, but instead to allow him to ride a bus and potentially endanger everyone on it because they wanted to see where he'd lead them. Their "extensive monitoring" of his actions lasted less than an hour.

Once it became clear to him that the poor bastard was heading for a train, they **** themselves and it was over in a matter of seconds after that.

We dont pay police enough to put themselves in senseless danger. Being in the police force is not an easy line of work. Having comrades killed, being exposed to situations of extreme gore, its one of the greatest tests of human mental strength, and for all that society repays you buy giving you a mediocre paycheck.

We don't pay our soldiers a whole lot more.

The point is that when you sign up for the police force, it's a voluntary decision. You're not led to believe that it will be safe, easy, or laid-back. In fact, I think it's pretty clear from the outset that it's one of the most thankless, underpaid, and stressful jobs out there. They do it to serve their country, and as servants of their country, they put their lives on the line. It is their job to put their lives before the lives of innocent civilians, period.

Put yourself in the cops shoes - He believes this guy is a terrorist he is behaving like one, your heart is racing you chase him into a subway - flash backs of last week are racing through your mind - here is a chance for someone you believe to be a terrorist to perhaps blow up another station kill more ppl - this is heightened by the fact that you have friends injured in last weeks attack, you glance and see the faces of innocent children, women all who may be victim to this terrorist.

Look, my heart goes out to the poor SoB who pulled the trigger. He was scared out of his mind, and thought he was doing the right thing, only to find out later that he brutally killed an innocent, frightened young man.

Could this guy be innocent? maybe - could he be a terrorist - likely. Can you deal with knowing that 500 ppl might die if you dont act? what choice will you make, your police training tells you that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Right--so why let him onto the bus to begin with???

I just don't understand. Look, I'm not saying that the guy who pulled the trigger should go down. He was forced into that situation by a terrible call on the part of his superiors. Whoever was calling the shots should never have allowed him on the bus, or anywhere near the tube station.

If I were a passenger on the bus he rode, or the train he wound up on moments before having his head splattered all over the floor, I would file a lawsuit against the police--not seeking damages, but to make a point. They should never have allowed this suspected terrorist anywhere near a public bus or a public train. Ever. No two ways about it.

[Anyee]

Quite frankly, DC, the day you live in a city that gets bombed fairly regularly (see: Jerusalem, Belfast) or fairly impressively (see: Madrid, NYC) is the day you go from giving them the benefit of the doubt to shooting first, asking questions later.

It's good to use a lot of excuses for the guy who was running away, but in this case, I side with the police. We are, neurologically speaking, amazing profilers, some people better than other. It is how we catch shoplifters, for example: watching how they move, even if we didn't see them take the object. When someone acts in a way we know is behaviorally wrong for the situation, in a way that could signal danger (let's not forget all the dark skinned men in overcoats who HAVE blown up things), we should be startled. So, sorry, I disagree, though I have no inclination to give the blow by blow rebuttal since I need to go rebuild a website. :(

[DrunkCajun]

Quite frankly, DC, the day you live in a city that gets bombed fairly regularly (see: Jerusalem, Belfast) or fairly impressively (see: Madrid, NYC) is the day you go from giving them the benefit of the doubt to shooting first, asking questions later.

Thanks Anyee. I work 2 miles from the Pentagon. The plane that hit the Pentagon knocked the radio tower off the building next to mine on it's approach. I used to work within 2 blocks of the White House, one block from the World Bank and one block from the IMF. We had "suspicious packages" detonated in front of my office building on more than one occasion. I also ride the public transportation system in Washington DC almost every day of my life, as does my closest loved one, my fiancee. She currently works 6 blocks from the White House, by the way.

I also grew up in a city that was bombed twice before any of this terrorism nonsense started happening. As I noted earlier, Buenos Aires was bombed twice in my time there.

I know a thing or two about it all and how it feels to be a target.

How about this, Anyee--when you live in a country where you're more frightened of the police than anyone else, you can go on supporting the right of the police to shoot first and ask questions later.

It's good to use a lot of excuses for the guy who was running away, but in this case, I side with the police. We are, neurologically speaking, amazing profilers, some people better than other. It is how we catch shoplifters, for example: watching how they move, even if we didn't see them take the object. When someone acts in a way we know is behaviorally wrong for the situation, in a way that could signal danger (let's not forget all the dark skinned men in overcoats who HAVE blown up things), we should be startled. So, sorry, I disagree, though I have no inclination to give the blow by blow rebuttal since I need to go rebuild a website. :(

So you agree that the police did the right thing by allowing this potential terrorist to ride a bus? That makes no sense to me.

Why is everyone okay with this guy having ridden the freaking bus, but okay with blowing his head into tiny bits when he came near a train?

Can someone please explain it to me? My main argument here IS NOT that lethal force isn't justifiable in some cases. My main argument is that if using lethal force can be avoided, it should be. In this case, by picking up the man before he endangered the lives of dozens of bus passengers.

[SaroDarksbane]

Let me reiterate:

The police thought he was a terrorist, but they let him onto a bus.

I don't care whether you think the ending was justified or not; the police seriously ****ed this up one way or the other. Anyone who says, "They had to shoot him because he could have killed even more people if he had actually been a terrorist!" is ignoring or is conveniently choosing to block out the fact that the police gave him ample time to kill dozens of people before choosing to use deadly force.

If you believe the shooting was unjustified: They ****ed up.
If you believe the shooting was justified: They ****ed up.

There's just no way around it.

[Krollin]

Guns are rare in England - I'm English; we were talking about this today in my office...

Unanimously the opinion was:

1) You do not run from someone pointing a gun at you.
2) You under no circumstances run from someone shouting POLICE and pointing a gun at you.
3) You REALLY dont run straight to the site of a suicide bombing, like a lunatic, following the events of point 2.

While the people (anticipating more?) getting shot in this way remain people running from armed police, because they have expired visas(!),and towards recent scenes of terrorist incidents, little sympathy can be expected from the British public.

In fact, from the English people I've spoken to you are more likely to hear comments along the lines of "what the hell did he expect?".

As to the question of why he wasn't apprehended sooner - by that line of thought Police wouldn't be able to get any of the information they surely obtain via following suspects.

This of course, all assumes that the police declared themselves. But even so; as I said before; guns are rare in England and there is about zero chance of being apprehended in the street by "random people with guns" - which is a commonly appreciated factoid of English life.

You can also see the quality of the relatives of this guy "he wasn't running he was...he was...he was... playing a game of chase" (see link) (he was....mid 20's?).


There's always room to improve police procedures, but IMO this should serve as a cautionary tale to common-sense lacking visa-dodgers with little topical awareness.

I agree with DK completely on this one.

Further

The Police identified themselves to the man -before- they pulled their weapons, so he was running from law enforcement officers who happened to have been armed and trained in the use of weapons.
Had he stopped then they would not have need to draw their weapons
The "rules of engagement" in such incidents have to be shoot to kill if there is a real possibility that they are dealing with a person carrying a bomb.
This discussion would not be taking place had he been carrying a bomb.
There will be an Official Public Enquiry into the incident which can lead to charges being pressed by the Department of Public Prosecutions should it be evident the the Officers involved acted illegally.
The chances of this going to court are 0.
There are a pot load of witnesses to what happened and they seem to confirm the course of events as told by the Police.
The -only- way to be certain of incapacitating someone in order to prevent them from detonating are aimed shots to the head with the aim of causing catastrophic damage to the brain stem and/or spinal cord at the point where the spinal cord enters the skull.
Despite what you see in the movies this cannot be done by someone with a pistol taking aim at a running target from a range of 20 yds.
This has to be done at point blank range and at best with the target not moving.
While there is sympathy for the Family of the deceased there is not much in the way of sympathy for the man himself.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for this guy. Yes it is tragic that he was killed but what is worse is the fact that he put himself in danger in the first place.
What would you rather have, Law Enforcement Officers who do not have the ability to prevent a ghastly tragedy like July 7th or a well trained core of Officers who do have the means to deal with this even if it means that such tragic events can happen.
This guy gave the Officers enough reason to leave them in no doubt that they had to take his life in order to prevent the possibility of another massive loss of life. Personally I feel a lot safer knowing that they can do this and are prepared to do so.
The Police had a nightmare on the PR front about this afterwards.
First he was definitely linked to the attempted bombings the day before.
Then he had no explosive materials on his person.
Then he was not actually linked to the events of the day before.
The he was in the UK on an expired visa and was the victim of mistaken identity.

To all of you out there who are passing ocmment about "gun toting cowboy policemen". The unit of Officers who are licensed and trained to carry and use Firearms comprise ~400 Officers in the Greater London Area (Metropolitan Police). They are called to use their weapons ~3 times a year. To date there has never been a case proven where the person shot did not give the Officers justification for using their weapons. I have no doubt that this will be the case this time as well.

[Krollin]

Let me reiterate:

The police thought he was a terrorist, but they let him onto a bus.

If you are going to do that then get your facts right.

He was first asked to stop before he even got into the Underground Station.
Upon identifying themselves the man jumped the turnstiles and ran into the station where the Officers again warned him that they would shoot if he did not stop.

By the time the officers reached him he was in the process of boarding the Underground Train whereupon he was apprehended by more than one Officer and rendered incapable of detonating a bomb (see above for how and why).

They didn't let him do anything, they gave him the required warnings and when he ignored them they acted as they are trained to do.

The only person who ****ed up here was the guy who got himself needlessly killed.

[DrunkCajun]

If you are going to do that then get your facts right.

He was first asked to stop before he even got into the Underground Station.
Upon identifying themselves the man jumped the turnstiles and ran into the station where the Officers again warned him that they would shoot if he did not stop.

By the time the officers reached him he was in the process of boarding the Underground Train whereupon he was apprehended by more than one Officer and rendered incapable of detonating a bomb (see above for how and why).

They didn't let him do anything, they gave him the required warnings and when he ignored them they acted as they are trained to do.

The only person who ****ed up here was the guy who got himself needlessly killed.

Sorry Krollin, but I think you need to read up on the story.

Let me link it (again) for you.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707480,00.html


Here's a highlight for you:


When Mr Menezes emerged from the communal front door just after 9.30am, the police must have realised from the photographs they carried that he was not one of the four bombers. Even so they decided that he was “a likely candidate” to follow because of his demeanour and colour, so one group set off on foot after him.

As he waited at a nearby bus stop the reconnaissance team sought urgent instructions on whether to challenge him right away or let him board a bus. They were worried about the dark, bulky, padded jacket he had zipped up on such a muggy morning.

The decision was taken to let him go, in the hope that he might lead his shadows to at least one of the bombers.

The bus journey was slow, as on any other Friday morning, but Mr Menezes seemed to be in no hurry. He was heading to Willesden Green to fix an alarm system. When it was obvious that he was getting off at the stop nearest Stockwell Tube station, the team on the bus alerted a three-man team of marksmen to move in.


I bolded the mistake for you. That's where the mistake here was made. The police decided the chance that he might lead them to other terrorists was worth risking the lives of everyone on that bus. Nevermind that terrorists don't go around every day with explosives strapped to their chests just to meet up with one another and discuss plans, they only do that to actually blow things up.


Faulty logic and poor decision making. Whoever made that call should not be making decisions like that in the future--he willingly endangered the lives of every citizen on that bus ride.

[SaroDarksbane]

Nevermind that terrorists don't go around every day with explosives strapped to their chests just to meet up with one another and discuss plans, they only do that to actually blow things up.
That made me laugh. >_<

"We think he's strapped with explosives. Should we let him get on that bus full of people?"
"Why not? He's clearly just going to meet up with his terrorist buddies somewhere. Why else would a man strapped with explosives board a bus?"
"Okay sir, now he's getting on a train."
"OMG SHOOT TO KILL!"

[Krollin]

Sorry Krollin, but I think you need to read up on the story.

Let me link it (again) for you.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707480,00.html

I quote from the article you linked.

Quote:
"There are eight separate flats in the block. When Mr Menezes emerged from the communal front door just after 9.30am, the police must have realised from the photographs they carried that he was not one of the four bombers. Even so they decided that he was “a likely candidate” to follow because of his demeanour and colour, so one group set off on foot after him. "

That is pure speculation on the part of the reporter and as such cannot be taken as fact. Just because the reporter thinks they must have known something does not mean they actually did.

Quote:
"As he waited at a nearby bus stop the reconnaissance team sought urgent instructions on whether to challenge him right away or let him board a bus. They were worried about the dark, bulky, padded jacket he had zipped up on such a muggy morning. "

There is no suggestion here that they made the decision to allow him to board the bus themselves unless the bus arrived before Scotland Yard could relay them instructions.

The identification of the man they were trailing would have been crucial in the decision making process here.

If the reporter is right in his assumption and the Officers concerned could not positively identify the man as a suspect in the bombings then someone else made the decision to let him board the bus. If he had been identified as a suspect then he would not have made that bus at all.

Edit: Even if they were certain he was a man carrying a bomb, unless they had the means to stop him without endangering others, they would simply have provoked him into detonating there and then which would have killed who knows how many? It may well be that the only time they could get assets in place was to let him get on the bus and hope he didn't intend to blow that up. A horrible risk to have to take.

Again, there is a lot of speculation on the part of the reporter here as to what actually happened here.

In this case it was not the Officers themselves, who by the way were not the same team who shot the man dead later, who made the decision.

Quote:
"When it was obvious that he was getting off at the stop nearest Stockwell Tube station, the team on the bus alerted a three-man team of marksmen to move in. "

So now the man has been handed off from the surveillance team to an armed response unit. Why?

Quote:
"As Mr Menezes waited to cross the busy main road, the decision was taken at Scotland Yard that he must not be allowed to get to the platform.
The marksmen were told: if you think he has explosives under his coat and he fails to heed shouted warnings, then you must shoot to kill."

So the Officers had clear orders, stop the man getting on the train. They also had clear directives as to how to react if the man did not heed the necessary warnings.

What happened?
Quote:
"As the three plain-clothes officers closed in on Mr Menezes, they say that they screamed their first warning that they were armed police. Their version is that he turned, ran into the station concourse, vaulted the ticket barriers and reached a waiting train before they could catch him. They shot him five times in the head when they believed that he was trying to trigger a bomb."

The article then gives some "eye-witness" accounts which go from the absurd "He was playing tag in the station" to the more serious "I did not hear any warnings being shouted".

Quote:
"Lee Ruston, 32, who was on the platform, said that he did not hear any of the three shout “police” or anything like it. "

If the police did shout their warnings outside the station then it is unlikely that anyone inside the station would have heard them sufficiently clearly to be able to recognise them for what they were.

At no point does this article or any other I have read say that the decision to allow Mr Menezes to board the bus was taken by the officers on the ground. These officers were not armed response officers, they were carrying out surveillance. At this stage it is not clear who they actually requested instructions from.

When the team handed Mr Menezes over the the Armed Response Team, Scotland Yard gave 2 clear instructions.
1- Do not allow the man to get on a train
2- If he does not heed your warnings you are to shoot to kill

He obviously ran away, if he ignored warnings given then the Officers concerned acted as they were supposed to.

Where in all of this is there any evidence that the Police Officers on the ground did anything wrong or made a bad decision?

Next time you post "evidence" to support your theory about the officers making a bad decision which lead to the death of an innocent man make sure it does.

At best the people at Scotland Yard should be made to justify the shoot to kill order, I doubt very much that that would be hard to do though.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Quite frankly, DC, the day you live in a city that gets bombed fairly regularly (see: Jerusalem, Belfast) or fairly impressively (see: Madrid, NYC) is the day you go from giving them the benefit of the doubt to shooting first, asking questions later.


Poor DC, I actually feel sorry for the guy.. Anyway, while I don't care to get into the rest of the argument, I will say that the law of the land should be based on concrete, objective law - not subject to fear. In that case, you have the very people you're trying to stop dictating your policy. Incapacitating him is one thing, but killing first and asking questions later - by police no less - is something entirely different. Police who do that are not upholders of law, but rather paranoia, who have no place wearing a badge.


It's good to use a lot of excuses for the guy who was running away, but in this case, I side with the police. We are, neurologically speaking, amazing profilers, some people better than other.

Perhaps not as good as you might think. I always thought I lived in a world full of idiots, but maybe that's just me :p.

[Krollin]

Anyway, while I don't care to get into the rest of the argument
You obviously haven't been reading the Thread very carefully or the rest of the tripe you spouted wouldn't have appeared.

[DrunkCajun]

And depending on which reports you believe, his "bulky jacket" was a denim jacket and he used his ticket to enter the Tube.

Let me put it like this.

Before you people all go and pat the police on the back and go home satisfied because someone was blown away in the name of freedom, and while it was an mistake you feel okay about it, leave your minds open to the fact that we might not have all of the facts in this case.

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1268&storyid=3520886


Wanna hear the real nice part? They arrested a real terrorist, complete with a rucksack that could have been carrying explosives--all without killing him. They used a stun gun to stop him. Sad that while everyone's out beating the drum calling for the murder of suspects the police demonstrate that they're perfectly capable of detaining a true terrorist without harming him in the least.

http://www.asiantribune.com/show_news.php?id=15192

Another account:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/tennant3.html

Menezes, so the official story originally went, had been under surveillance as a suspect in last week’s attempted bombings of the London Underground and was acting suspiciously. For example, he was wearing a jacket on a warm day and then ran onto a subway train when the officers – who, let us recall, were not in uniform – trained their guns on him and ordered him to stop.

As it turns out, very little of this is accurate, and what is accurate does not help the police force’s case very much. In point of fact, Menezes was staying at someone else’s house and was not himself the target of any surveillance at the time. Wearing a jacket on a warm day is hardly evidence of terrorist activity. Take a trip to Orlando in January when the temperature there only reaches 65; if you’re from the north, it will feel balmy to you, but natives will be bundled up in sweaters and heavy jackets. Menezes, a Brazilian, might very well have felt chilly on a day that seemed quite warm to Londoners. On top of that, Menezes was allowed to take a 15-minute bus ride prior to his attempt to board the Underground, hardly the kind of activity one would expect the police to permit a suspected suicide bomber to undertake. Is it any wonder, then, that he might panic and try to escape when men with guns told him to stop?

More response:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1070-1707225,00.html

I think this one speaks to my point:
http://www.ottawasun.com/Comment/Editorial/2005/07/27/1148910.html

What makes the defenders against terrorism in democratic nations different from the terrorists who prey on them, is that we demand accountability from the former while expecting nothing in the way of decency or humanity from the latter.

I'll state it again. I'm not calling for the man who pulled the trigger's head. I'm calling for an open, transparent investigation into the decision made by whoever decided to allow him onto the bus--a decision which cost Mr. Menezes his life.

http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=287494

Some background on the difference between Brazilian and UK police:

Police violence has long been a fact of life in Brazil. Amnesty International reports that in 2004 there were 663 killings by officers in Sao Paulo state, and 983 in Rio de Janeiro State.

But few here would expect the same to happen in the UK. "The police committed a gross, stupid, third-world error," says Maria do Socorro Alves, a cousin of the dead man.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4716141.stm



It sounds to me is that Londoners (and those who blindly support awarding the police involved all with medals) are scared out of their minds and willing to throw safety and liberty away for security. I know those are harsh words, and I don't mean any offense--I'm on the outside looking in here. I just think it's absolutely silly for no one to want to investigate this matter and acknowledge the fact that it could have been handled differently.

Maybe I'm a far-out political wacko. The D2 OTF for the most part certainly seems to think so.

But this guy doesn't--he's saying exactly what I'm saying.

It took Tony Blair three days to apologize to the family of the unfortunate Brazilian. Nevertheless, he and Police Commissioner Ian Blair also made clear that the shoot-to-kill policy will continue. Their arguments are suited to the practical, Anglo-Saxon spirit. It’s better to have one innocent person killed than to put a greater number of lives at risk. It is also better to aim at the head than the chest, for the target may be carrying explosives. Many believe that the aim of the terrorists is not to free Iraq or Palestine but to destroy Western democracy. If we accept this explanation, then we must also admit that the terrorists have already won. If the country that gave birth to parliamentary democracy and which claims to have the world’s most humane police officers adopts a shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy, then one dreads to think of the future of our much-cherished freedoms as they struggle between the clashing rocks of Islamic terror and the nascent police state.

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_columns_100022_27/07/2005_59035

For all my bleating about losing freedom here in the US, I always thought somewhere in Europe would be where I'd go eventually. I'm starting to reconsider--it's clear to me Europe is no more concerned about protecting their freedom than the right wing in America.

[SaroDarksbane]

Don't give in to terrorism, DC. Learn to live in fear and paranoia instead.

[Dark Knight]

how did you arrive at that?

Most people cannot outrun bullets.

Edit: Unlike Saros ;)

[SaroDarksbane]

Most people cannot outrun bullets.
If they didn't manage to catch him before he got onto the train, apparently he was far enough away that they couldn't shoot him. In such a case, he did "outrun" bullets by being too far to shoot at in the first place. The further you are away, the harder you are to hit.

[Elly]

Good to see lots of support for the coppers here from all over the world

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4711189.stm

[Suicidal Zebra]

For all this 'we don't want the head' of those involved in this shooting, you guys on the D2 OTF have pretty such acted as judge, jury and executioner on the London Police in your various threads. Maybe before we spout all this vitriol we should wait for the official investigation rather than those of half-arsed news outlets. Outlets whose reputations you would not stint on tearing apart were their stories used against them. But no, seemingly like the gentleman shot on Friday they too are guilty till proven innocent (and even then... they are London Cops... can't be too careful).

Much as I love the laughable anecdotes of 'trading security for liberty', 'Londoners are living in fear' and all the rest seemingly without having a clue about the psyche of the 'average Britisher' and the ideals which they hold dear, they are getting old now. Seriously.

[SaroDarksbane]

Good to see lots of support for the coppers here from all over the world

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4711189.stm
They seem pretty balanced in opinions. Much like this thread.

[DrunkCajun]

Don't give in to terrorism, DC. Learn to live in fear and paranoia instead.

I live with the knowledge that I could be blown to bits any day of the week, or worse yet, watch helplessly from my office window across the river as my fiancee is subject to a terrorist attack on the downtown area. That's not why I'd be leaving the US.

I'd leave in search of freedom and democracy, two things I value above all else--yes, including my life. Since the war on terror seems to be willing to write both off as collateral damage, I'm willing to write off living in any country fighting in that war so long as I can find one with freedom and democracy.

Australia's looking mighty nice at the moment.

SZ, call them laughable anecdotes or whatever else you want. The PATRIOT act is very real. The founding fathers of this nation, at least, would be absolutely astounded that such an intrusive peice of legislation was ever allowed to be passed, let alone stand up to the Supreme Court. There is a reason so many people are using those phrases, SZ. That many people are very, very concerned. Britain may be different--you've had established laws and an established system for FAR longer than the United States. Compared to the UK, the United States is an infant nation. And the younger a nation, the more unstable and subject to shifts it is. Thus, when I see my country, at least, shifting away from the freedom and democracy we so dearly cherish, I get very concerned very quickly.

In case you haven't noticed, since my original position, I've backed off a bit. I'm willing to hear out an investigation into the matter. My problem is with people blindly supporting the police--I support the police and military more than most people think. Three of my closest friends in the world serve in my nation's military (one as a Coast Guard Reservist, another as a Marine Reservist--he just returned from a 12 month tour in Iraq--and another who's just entering basic training in the US Army), and a few more work for this nation's intelligence agencies. I have the utmost respect and support for those who put themselves in harm's way to protect my nation and it's people, and for those who dedicate their lives to the security and safety of my nation.

I also believe in a little something called "oversight". I believe that in a free country and a democractic one, there is a thing called "transparency" that should exist, and when police reports state that a suspect was killed under the circumstances he was, and claim (contrary to other claims now emerging) that he was wearing a "bulky jacket", or "jumped the turnstiles", or that they clearly identified themselves to him BEFORE drawing weapons--when all these things are claimed I want to believe them. I also want someone else to investigate them to give me the ability to believe them. Unfortunately, the plethora of accounts emerging more and more seem to stray from the official story, and I also find the fact that the police are not releasing the CCTV tapes of the events even to the family of the man who was killed somewhat disturbing.

What bothers me are all the people writing off an investigation and saying things like "he deserved to be killed for running" or "he should have known better". These people are refusing to accept that the police, too, might have shared some of the fault in this matter, and instead placing blame solely on the man who was gunned down rather savagely. You're all right--he shouldn't have run. He shouldn't have jumped the turnstiles (if in fact he did). But the fact of the matter is that the police have a duty to go out of their way to protect innocents, and as part of that duty it means determining ways of apprehending suspects in the least lethal manner possible. Shooting to kill should be a LAST resort, not a standing policy.

[Anyee]

What bothers me are all the people writing off an investigation and saying things like "he deserved to be killed for running" or "he should have known better". These people are refusing to accept that the police, too, might have shared some of the fault in this matter, and instead placing blame solely on the man who was gunned down rather savagely. You're all right--he shouldn't have run. He shouldn't have jumped the turnstiles (if in fact he did). But the fact of the matter is that the police have a duty to go out of their way to protect innocents, and as part of that duty it means determining ways of apprehending suspects in the least lethal manner possible. Shooting to kill should be a LAST resort, not a standing policy.

Ah, so shooting one person makes it a standing policy. What do you think the UK is, Compton?

This isn't the case where people are saying that you shouldn't object to unreasonable search and seizure if you have nothing to hide. There is a difference between having a conversation and fleeing. Running from the police in ANY situation, peaceful or violent, is a stupid idea. I don't care if you are from a country where the police eat your babies. Fleeing usually means you do have something to hide and that you are afraid, not that you are just afraid. What should they have done, exactly? Kept yelling at him to stop? Tasers aren't long range, last I checked.

What this investigation is based on is the presumption that they wanted to kill this man, that they were looking to kill him, that this was the intent all the long. It will only lead to further precautions being taken in a situation where less restraint, not more, may have been more prudent. It will only result in scapegoating.

[SaroDarksbane]

I know where you're coming from, DC. My father is actually a police officer, AND he was in the military. Personally, I think the Patriot Act is far less worrisome than the recent supreme court decision to gut private property rights in favor of tax-paying businesses.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You obviously haven't been reading the Thread very carefully or the rest of the tripe you spouted wouldn't have appeared.

No, I read it carefully enough. I would think that even the casual reader would have understood what I posted could stand alone.

[SaroDarksbane]

No, I read it carefully enough. I would think that even the casual reader would have understood what I posted could stand alone.
The problem is the night elf in your avatar. Anyone who reads the forums knows that NE's don't have valid opinions. ^_^

EDIT:
Tasers aren't long range, last I checked.
You realize they shot him point blank, right? If they're close enough to put a clip into the back of the man's head, they are close enough to tazer him.

Furthermore, if you suspect him of being a bomber, why announce your presence so far away? To give him time to run? If he was a bomber, it's not like he's just going to sit there and wait to be arrested just because you identified yourself. Unless he's planning to blow himself up when you get close.

In either case, identifying yourself to an actual suicide bomber at ALL seems like a lose-lose situation. Shoulda just tazed the guy when they saw him walking toward the subway.

[DrunkCajun]

Ah, so shooting one person makes it a standing policy. What do you think the UK is, Compton?

You could have fooled me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1536770,00.html?gusrc=rss

Police have been given permission to shoot dead suspected suicide bombers without any verbal warning, the Guardian has learned.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/news/ci_2888390

London's police commissioner expressed regret Sunday for the slaying of a Brazilian electrician by officers who mistook him for a suspect in the recent terror bombings, but he defended a police shoot-to-kill policy as "the only way" to stop would-be suicide bombers.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/03a8b00c-fe0e-11d9-a289-00000e2511c8.html

In a separate development surrounding Britain’s newly-revealed and highly controversial shoot-to-kill policy, Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, said on Tuesday night that officers had been on the brink of using the policy on seven separate occasions since the July 7 London bombings.

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=97341

"I think we are quite comfortable that the policy is right, but of course these are fantastically difficult times," Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair told Sky Television.

Asked if the instructions were to shoot to kill if police believed a suspect was a suicide bomber, he said: "Correct. They have to be that."

http://english.people.com.cn/200507/26/eng20050726_198300.html

Britain's most senior policeman remained defiant on Sunday night (local time) over the new "shoot-to-kill" policy for dealing with suspected suicide bombers, despite the killing last week of an innocent man by armed officers.

Sir Ian Blair, the Scotland Yard commissioner, apologized to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, the 27-year-old Brazilian who died after being shot five times in the head at close range by police on board a tube train at Stockwell, south London, on Friday.

But he admitted more people could die at the hands of police marksmen in the escalating battle against terrorism. Openly discussing the shift in police tactics for the first time, Sir Ian defended the policy of "shoot to kill in order to protect," saying it was necessary to shoot suspects in the head if it was feared they might trigger devices on their body.

There is a difference between having a conversation and fleeing.

There is also, apparently, a difference in the value of the lives of those who ride buses and those who ride trains. Those who ride buses are expendable. Those who ride trains are not.

Tasers aren't long range, last I checked.

Considering the suspect was being held by two police officers and a gun was unloaded into the back of his head from point-blank range, I don't think the range was the issue.

Moreover, if they were able to board a bus at the same station as he did without arousing suspicion, why not taser him then and there?

What this investigation is based on is the presumption that they wanted to kill this man, that they were looking to kill him, that this was the intent all the long.

It's a shame, then, that the oversight in England is so biased as to be worthless. Perhaps you should bring in an independent investigation team from a country capable of providing unbiased investigators who could investigate whether or not the police followed proper procedure in allowing a suspected suicide bomber to board and ride a bus.

It will only lead to further precautions being taken in a situation where less restraint, not more, may have been more prudent. It will only result in scapegoating.

What's wrong with further precautions being taken to save lives? God forbid we take precautions to value the lives of bus riders as highly as we value the lives of train riders.

I'm not trying to scapegoat--I might have been at the beginning when I was more riled up, but at this point I think the real goal should be to figure out what is wrong with the policies that allowed this suspect to enter a full bus when for all the cops knew he was carrying 40 lbs of C4 with the intention of killing as many people as possible. Or perhaps what is wrong with the policies that allows them to endanger the lives of so many merely based on a hunch because they noticed a dark-skinned invidual not wearing the prescribed shorts and a tank top and unfortunate enough to be in the same neighborhood as a suspect and wanted to see how many terrorists they'd help them catch.


I frankly find it appalling that you don't even support the idea of an investigation, Anyee. Would you feel the same way if it had been your brother or boyfriend gunned down?

I think the Patriot Act is far less worrisome than the recent supreme court decision to gut private property rights in favor of tax-paying businesses.

I don't think that court decision will hold--Congress is already working on laws to deny federal funding to any localities that attempt to seize property based on this ruling, and several states are doing the same.

[Dementor]

"Hrm, here's a guy we think might have unstable homemade explosives on his body, likely with an electronic trigger, what do we do?"

"I know, let's send upwards of 1000 volts of electricity through him!"

Yeah, tasering suicide bombers... GREAT plan...

To keep a suicide bomber from detonating, a shot in the head is the only sure way.

[SaroDarksbane]

I don't think that court decision will hold--Congress is already working on laws to deny federal funding to any localities that attempt to seize property based on this ruling, and several states are doing the same.
Which is unfortunate, because it sets a precedent of legislature's ability to trump supreme court decisions by creating more legislature. Necessary in this case, but highly exploitable. If tommorow, the legislature was all Republicans, and they decided to withhold funding from any state who allowed abortion (a right the surpreme court has upheld), I think there would be some panic.

It was a necesary step this time to prevent such an insane ruling from becoming the norm, but either way the US gets stripped of just one more layer of protection.

[DrunkCajun]

"Hrm, here's a guy we think might have unstable homemade explosives on his body, likely with an electronic trigger, what do we do?"

"I know, let's send upwards of 1000 volts of electricity through him!"

Yeah, tasering suicide bombers... GREAT plan...

To keep a suicide bomber from detonating, a shot in the head is the only sure way.

You should read up on explosives.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/c-42.htm

Because of the stabilizer elements, it takes a considerable shock to set off this reaction; lighting the C-4 with a match will just make it burn slowly, like a piece of wood (in Vietnam, soldiers actually burned C-4 as an improvised cooking fire). Even shooting the explosive with a rifle won't trigger the reaction. Only a detonator, or blasting cap will do the job properly.

A detonator is just a smaller explosive that's relatively easy to set off. An electrical detonator, for example, uses a brief charge to set off a small amount of explosive material. When somebody triggers the detonator (by transmitting the charge through detonator cord to a blasting cap, for example), the explosion applies a powerful shock that triggers the C-4 explosive material.

At any rate, as I pointed out, the police managed to apprehend a true terrorist operative. Alive. With a taser. The innocent man was the one gunned down, and according to Sir Ian Blair, seven other innocent men or women were nearly gunned down.

Which is unfortunate, because it sets a precedent of legislature's ability to trump supreme court decisions by creating more legislature. Necessary in this case, but highly exploitable. If tommorow, the legislature was all Republicans, and they decided to withhold funding from any state who allowed abortion (a right the surpreme court has upheld), I think there would be some panic.

It was a necesary step this time to prevent such an insane ruling from becoming the norm, but either way the US gets stripped of just one more layer of protection.

How do you think the drinking age in the United States is 21? The federal government forced state governments to enforce the 21 year old drinking age by withholding federal highway funding from any states who didn't. Which is part of the reason the highways in Louisiana were so deplorable for so long--they were one of the last holdouts against the drinking age hike.

Unfortunate as it may be, there is precedent for it. It's an abuse of the federal system in my opinion, and a breach of the checks and balances, but not much we can do about it. Trust legislators to pry open chasmic cracks in even the most watertight systems.

[Dementor]

You should read up on explosives.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/c-42.htm

I think banking in the fact that terrorists will be using C-4 (an unusually stable high-explosive) might be a mistake... and even if they WERE, allow me to refer you your own quote, posted to make me look foolish...

When somebody triggers the detonator (by transmitting the charge through detonator cord to a blasting cap, for example), the explosion applies a powerful shock that triggers the C-4 explosive material.


...I would imagine they would already have a trigegring mechanism attached, seeing as the plan is to actually make it explode. A taser could easily set off such a trigger.

At any rate, as I pointed out, the police managed to apprehend a true terrorist operative. Alive. With a taser. The innocent man was the one gunned down, and according to Sir Ian Blair, seven other innocent men or women were nearly gunned down.

It is my understanding that there was no reason to believe that this man had live explosives at the time of his capture. If there was, I would call their use of a taser foolish, and their survival fortunate.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Good to see lots of support for the coppers here from all over the world

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4711189.stm


If I didn't know any better, I'd call that a classic example of ad-hominem fallacy.

[Elly]

If I didn't know any better, I'd call that a classic example of ad-hominem fallacy.

Yes, 'if'.

[Gaza0469]

Would have to say Im pretty impressed with the argument so far on both camps =)


This has to be one of the best referenced debates I have seen for a long time, especially from DC even though I still disagree with ya =) sure cant fault you on backing everything up that you say though!

=)

[Dementor]

Would have to say Im pretty impressed with the argument so far on both camps =)


This has to be one of the best referenced debates I have seen for a long time, especially from DC even though I still disagree with ya =) sure cant fault you on backing everything up that you say though!

=)

What, that they should use tasers on guys carrying unknown explosives? That's just foolish.

[Gaza0469]

Gaza, the man is from a country where the police take target practice on homeless children in the streets, judges can be bought for shockingly little, and anyone who pulls a gun on you, police officer or not, isn't likely to not use it.


Ok, so if he doesnt trust police, what is he doing living in london? The place where 'police' were invented. Thats like going from the kettle into the frying pan isnt it?

If he expects that police can and will use guns why run – if he expects to be shot.
Wouldn’t he be safer to surrendering himself with all the witnesses around? I can understand him running in a dark alley but in a public place that’s still crazy and defies logic.

While I understand that to us it seems obvious what to do in that situation, the fact of the matter is that anyone suddenly realizing a dozen or more men brandishing weapons are chasing them is under immediate duress.

And you know what the most common thing to do under duress is to do? Freeze and watch time tick by awlfully slow as fear creeps in.

About 5 years back while working at a 24 servo I was attacked twice, once with a gun to my head with the safety off and the second time I was stabbed with a knife but was lucky enough to overpower my assailant.

When you know your life is in immediate danger freezing is the most common thing to happen. Its very unusual to find someone who just decides to run away. After chatting with police afterwards and counseling I found out that freezing is what happens the majority of the time.

Add to that stresses of being on an expired work visa abroad and a lifetime of conditioning to not trust the police,

Errm he was 27. Not exactly a lifetime.

much less anyone with a gun, and I can totally understand his reaction. I myself am very skittish around police even in the United States because I moved to a country when I was 10 where I was taught to treat the police with more skepticism than suspicious-looking strangers. I to this day will go out of my way to cross the street away from a police officer without thinking about it.

I don’t see how this supports your argument your situation and his are both unique and I don’t believe comparisons can be made here – unless you would care to expand on your points here.






That's the thing. In his country, it doesn't always matter if you're innocent or not. "Proof" doesn't mean diddly.

I assume he moved to the UK for a better life – shouldn’t he then at least make some effort to follow the laws of the land, maybe have a little faith in his decision to goto a new country? If he assumed all police were twisted why did he bother leaving his home country. Deep down we are all patriots and love our home country where ever that is if he simply thought all police are warped, then there really was no reason to leave his home in the first place. He should of made an effort to have a valid work permit , stop when required to do so by an officer of the law – all these things he should of done.

If he had of followed the rules ( maybe get his permit – then he wouldn’t of been nervous and wouldn’t of been shot. ) Unfortunately action leads to consequence.



Fact of the matter is the police screwed the pooch. They had plenty of time to stop him. If they were concerned about the lives of many, they would not have let him onto a bus. Instead they followed him while he took a bus ride, never stopping him.

Stop him with what? They tried vocal. I don’t believe they have Jedi powers , and maybe they should of gone back to the police station to get a stun gun while a suspected terrorist blew stuff up.



Understandably--but the police aren't the judge and jury,

I don’t recall saying they were. They are however given power under that jurisdiction and one of those powers is to shoot terrorists on sight, which they executed in accordance with the law.

and this is the exact reason. The police are not the ones who are on the streets to dole out punishment. They are there to bring people to justice. This man was not brought to justice, and no efforts were made to bring him to justice.

They requested him to stop, they showed there badges, they ordered him to stop or they would shoot. He ran into a subway wearing a jacket. Detonators can be concealed anywhere check out Iraq – it can take a good 5-10 minutes to find a well concealed detonator and in a packed subway you don’t have 5-10 minutes.

I still believe with the information available at the time was reason for the police to act within their jurisdiction.




I disagree, though I'll admit I don't know much about British law. Had this occured in the United States you can bet there would be a lot of questions being asked. I would absolutely shocked not to see some sort of legal ruling on the case if it had happened in the US.

London currently has a STK policy implemented, the US does not the circumstances are different. Had it of been just some random event outside of terrorism then this would be a huge tragedy.



They also now know that the police won't bother to stop them until it's probably too late, that the police will let them ride the bus, and might even let them manage to dive into a train--any of which would provide the terrorist with ample opportunity to murder dozens of innocents.

Debatable – each situation is unique – different police, different suspects. The important thing here is the message – and that is there is zero tolerance for F@#R#$ that want to harm others.



Unfortunately, Gaza, this is where you're wrong. If you read some of the articles I linked, it's fairly clear that the police were monitoring a set of apartment buildings, and happened to notice this poor chap leaving one of them.

My apologies, I didn’t read that article, I skimmed over a couple of them, and based my argument on press releases that I had already read.

He had dark skin, wore a coat and had a bag, and despite the fact that he did not match any of the descriptions of the suspects, he was immediately labelled a terrorist.

No, you are wrong here, the police just wanted to question him. He labeled himself a terrorist when he failed to comply with there request. Had he of complied with the laws of the land he would still be alive today.

30 police officers started to trail him, and made the on-the-spot decision not to detain him straight away, but instead to allow him to ride a bus and potentially endanger everyone on it because they wanted to see where he'd lead them. Their "extensive monitoring" of his actions lasted less than an hour.

That is probably a bad call by the looks of it on face value, I will have to research it and get back to you.



We don't pay our soldiers a whole lot more.

Definitely not. But then I don’t believe in war. War is senseless I hate the thought of fellow human beings killing each other over petty things. It just makes me angry =/

The point is that when you sign up for the police force, it's a voluntary decision. You're not led to believe that it will be safe, easy, or laid-back. In fact, I think it's pretty clear from the outset that it's one of the most thankless, underpaid, and stressful jobs out there. They do it to serve their country, and as servants of their country, they put their lives on the line. It is their job to put their lives before the lives of innocent civilians, period.

It is however human nature to have self preservation. It takes a very rare and unique person to put his life above that of a stranger. (sure most of us would use our lives to protect family) I think it is foolhardy to expect a police officer to use his life to protect a complete stranger. However for those officers that do, and others like fire fighters I have utmost respect for. 9/11 comes to mind – how a fire fighter can run into a burning building when everyone else is running out that’s just a crazy amount of selfless courage right there.



Look, my heart goes out to the poor SoB who pulled the trigger. He was scared out of his mind, and thought he was doing the right thing, only to find out later that he brutally killed an innocent, frightened young man.

Definitely its an awlful situation for everyone involved = (



Right--so why let him onto the bus to begin with???

I just don't understand. Look, I'm not saying that the guy who pulled the trigger should go down. He was forced into that situation by a terrible call on the part of his superiors. Whoever was calling the shots should never have allowed him on the bus, or anywhere near the tube station.

I agree. It was a poor call.

If I were a passenger on the bus he rode, or the train he wound up on moments before having his head splattered all over the floor, I would file a lawsuit against the police--not seeking damages, but to make a point. They should never have allowed this suspected terrorist anywhere near a public bus or a public train. Ever. No two ways about it.

It probably comes down to a lack of experience on the part of those police involved – I know the UK has come under bombing fire since the 1900’s from the IRA ever since UK reneged on there pre- world war 2 election promises to Ireland but I guess that still doesn’t give sufficient scope to pre-plan these types of events.

On the flip side if this guy was a terrorist then the cop that fired the trigger would have been a hero – saving hundreds of lives.

[Krollin]

There was mention of the theory that a Taser could have been used to disable this guy.

While a Taser is good for incapacitating someone it is not a practical weapon when some is suspected of carrying a bomb


The high voltage used (upto 50k volts) causes massive cramping of the skeletal muscle rendering a person incapable of movement. When the muscles cramp the person's muscles contract suddenly. This could trigger the bomb.
The passage of the high voltage electrical pulse could cause the detonator to be triggered on its own and with the kind of explosives used by the terrorists on both occasions could even cause the main charge to either burn or partially detonate.
Neither result is what you want to happen.

[Dementor]

There was mention of the theory that a Taser could have been used to disable this guy.

While a Taser is good for incapacitating someone it is not a practical weapon when some is suspected of carrying a bomb


The high voltage used (upto 50k volts) causes massive cramping of the skeletal muscle rendering a person incapable of movement. When the muscles cramp the person's muscles contract suddenly. This could trigger the bomb.
The passage of the high voltage electrical pulse could cause the detonator to be triggered on its own and with the kind of explosives used by the terrorists on both occasions could even cause the main charge to either burn or partially detonate.
Neither result is what you want to happen.

I said the same thing, and the response I got was a rather lame attempt to make me look dumb (which backfired on the guy trying) and an assumption that suicide bombers would be using C4 (unlikely) without a detonator already attached to the explosives (ignorant).

I've noticed that person hasn't posted again.

The only sure way to stop a suicide bomber from detonating is a killing shot in the head. Just because you have him on the ground does not mean he cannot detonate.

This is NOT a situation where police can operate with their hands tied. Shoot first, ask questions later... it's rather "martial law" yes, but you do what has to be done in a time of war.

[SaroDarksbane]

This is NOT a situation where police can operate with their hands tied. Shoot first, ask questions later... it's rather "martial law" yes, but you do what has to be done in a time of war.
If you give up your rights to prevent the terrorists from winning, you've let the terrorists win.

[Dark Knight]

If you give up your rights to prevent the terrorists from winning, you've let the terrorists win.

Saros, what you are saying is out of proportion with what actually happened.

We've not put barcode implants in our skin, kicked out "foreigners", begun routinely executing criminals and started wearing funny armbands.

Terrorism or no, I think most people would agree that someone who would run from armed police in the context that they did (or even, at all) should be expecting of the message that sends out, and what they can expect to recieve (the business end of a bullet).

Yes I believe that to an extent the governments do love to be able to utilise the fear aspect of terrorism to their own ends, this hasn't happened in this case, and in addition British people are more cynical in general than the Americans, or so it would seem...

Barcodes coming soon to a state near you? :spy:



I

[Dark Knight]

Apologies for doublepost; new content.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4727975.stm

This should hopefully reassure some a little.

""They were shouting to him that he needed to come out with his arms up, in just his underwear.

"He was saying to them: 'how do I know when I come out, that you're not going to shoot me? I'm scared'." Police assured him he would not get shot as long as he followed instructions and they knew he was not a risk to the police or the public, she added. "

[SaroDarksbane]

Terrorism or no, I think most people would agree that someone who would run from armed police in the context that they did (or even, at all) should be expecting of the message that sends out, and what they can expect to recieve (the business end of a bullet).
Which context? Wearing a coat, having dark skin, or walking out of a hotel that was under watch? Which of these should he have known would get him shot for running?

If I was weighing whether or not to run, my first thought wouldn't be "Damn, I wonder if a suspected terrorist ever stayed in the building I left half an hour ago. If so, I'll probably get my head blown off."

[PlagueBearer]

If you give up your rights to prevent the terrorists from winning, you've let the terrorists win.

You quote rhetoic very well, kudos.

I would propose that allowing a suicide bomber to detonate is letting them win. Pulling out of the Middle East is letting them win. Their goal is to scare us into changing our policies regarding Muslim countries (like Spain did) so that they can contunue their fuedal theocracys without interferance, us changing our policies to make their terror less effective is not their goal.

[Dark Knight]

Which context? Wearing a coat, having dark skin, or walking out of a hotel that was under watch? Which of these should he have known would get him shot for running?

If I was weighing whether or not to run, my first thought wouldn't be "Damn, I wonder if a suspected terrorist ever stayed in the building I left half an hour ago. If so, I'll probably get my head blown off."

...........

The context of running away from armed police on the London underground of course?!

Not so much

"Damn, I wonder if a suspected terrorist ever stayed in the building I left half an hour ago. If so, I'll probably get my head blown off."

but

"Damn, I wonder if I act like a lunatic in the face of police. If so I'll probably get my head blown off."

But I KNOW you are intelligent enough to see this, and know exactly what I meant by "context" and this conversation is now going around in circles.

Anyone who thinks that Britain has turned into a totalitarian hellhole - well I guess stay in the tranquil land of USA and leave us to it.

EDIT: :surprise: - I agree totally with Plaguebearer for once! This was posted simultaneously to the post above.

[SaroDarksbane]

The context of running away from armed police on the London underground of course?!
When you said:
Terrorism or no, I think most people would agree that someone who would run from armed police in the context that they did (or even, at all) should be expecting of the message that sends out, and what they can expect to recieve (the business end of a bullet).
I thought you meant by "context", the context from his perspective, given that you said he should expect to get shot. If he was holding a stick of dynamite in his hands, yes, he should expect to get shot if he runs. I was asking what context he should be aware of that would necesitate that him running equals a death sentence. A police officer with a gun is not enough context for him to conclude that running is a death sentence.
"Damn, I wonder if I act like a lunatic in the face of police. If so I'll probably get my head blown off."
Running away from a police officer means you are acting like a lunatic? I don't accept that. I think it means you obviously have something to hide, but since when is that a death sentence?
You quote rhetoic very well, kudos.
No, I actually believe that. Keep pigeonholing people though, it's a great tactic for people who have no ammo.
I would propose that allowing a suicide bomber to detonate is letting them win.
Correct. but if we shoot our civilians instead of letting a suicide bomber kill them, is that better?
Pulling out of the Middle East is letting them win.
Correct, although I become less and less onboard with the Iraq invasion as time goes on.
Their goal is to scare us into changing our policies regarding Muslim countries (like Spain did) so that they can contunue their fuedal theocracys without interferance, us changing our policies to make their terror less effective is not their goal.
Of course, any outporing of anger at a target government for violating someone's rights will not lighten their mood in the least. How do you think the terrorists feel at the news of this man's innocence? Are they truely bumbed out that they killed a bunch of innocent people, and in response, the government they are trying to change killed another one? I doubt it. They are probably overjoyed.

[Dark Knight]

When you said:

I thought you meant by "context", the context from his perspective, given that you said he should expect to get shot. If he was holding a stick of dynamite in his hands, yes, he should expect to get shot if he runs. I was asking what context he should be aware of that would necesitate that him running equals a death sentence. A police officer with a gun is not enough context for him to conclude that running is a death sentence.

Running away from a police officer means you are acting like a lunatic? I don't accept that. I think it means you obviously have something to hide, but since when is that a death sentence?

No Saros, you don't play 'chicken' with armed police. Maybe in America (but I doubt it).

In England, in the very rare occasion that a police officer shouts "stop / dont move / etc" and is pointing a gun at you, that means that if you run you WILL get shot.

If its acceptable to run from armed police then why would they bother carrying guns and pointing them at you in the first place.

I would concur that you are quoting rhetoric, in my opinion; in that your one liner is cliche and seemingly disjointed from the topic at hand.

You are also continuing to labor under the misapprehension that this demonstrates our giving up rights; ignoring the blatantly obvious opinion people have that if you run from armed police then you expect what you get, let alone in the context of recent terrorism.

Someone's postings to the above even going as far as to say he was terrified by the thought of our police because of his old country back in teh day. Maybe he WAS just playing chase? Please.

I think many of the people generally siding with the police are looking at their monitors, slapping their foreheads and wondering why it is so hard to accept that sometimes you have to listen to authority or get pwned.

Vaguely reminiscent of some punk kid getting arrested and shouting "I know my rights!!!";like the law is optional when you want it to be.

Any decent citizen, or even person wishing to preserve their own life would obey the command of an English policeman - or half a dozen - pointing guns at you.

-= It isn't hard to comprehend =-

(Incidentally, and strictly "for teh record" they didn't shoot their own citizen as he wasn't, and shouldn't have been here for that matter).

*mischevious mode activated*

Lets play a little game...view the image below and respond "what would you do":

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/397798/2/Man_pointing_a_gun_.jpg

A) Run
B) Some crazy ninja stuff
C) Whatever the hell he says.

[WhiteKnight]

Just came back from a work trip to london to do some photography, in my work i got to talk to about 11 people that where on the tube trains that where bombed and 1 that was on the tube train where the man was shot,
because of my work they would not take to well to me speeking about this on the forum so that will have to wait.

my views after this trip:

In a 24 hour new world it is easy to say what has been done wrong, are news tv and papers all focuse on the negative results, be it london the iraq war or anything all the way down to local news.

The english police force has done a brilliant job in a very difficult enviroment, in many ways they are always in a lose lose situation, if some one wants to take other people lives it is very very hard to stop, it is easy to be an arm chair general and thinck we know it all but in the real world this fact and ideal situation very realy happen, andone in a military enviroment will know this. this choose was a bad one as simple as that everyone will say that, but this people where following orders, every time they have 'NOT' shot someone, in the same situation, is never mentioned, uk police have a very small pool of armed police ( for this reason they are only made active when there really needed, and it the most dire situations, britsh police and guns have never gone together but that is a differant argument )and i'm shore this same people had been called out many times before after the 7th bombings.

It is to easy to analyse an event over the next few days and then weeks after the event has happend. and come up with better ways to handle it situation when they only had seconds to make the choose in the first place.

sorry for spell gramma not my strong point, also need sleep just wanted to put up my 2 cents

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Lets play a little game...view the image below and respond "what would you do":

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/397798/2/Man_pointing_a_gun_.jpg

A) Run
B) Some crazy ninja stuff
C) Whatever the hell he says.


My kung fu is strong.

[Dark Knight]

My kung fu is strong.
Stronger than Combat Wombats (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/Combat+Wombat/)'?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Omgz I Pwn Wombatzzz!!1111!!!! (>^^)> - - - - - - - - - *

[Dark Knight]

So yeah, basically everyone agrees then that what we need is Team America for future situations like this.

http://www.infocusmag.com/04october/teamparis.jpg

[CTM]

i don't know, if someone told me to stop, i'd be too busy running to notice if they had guns!


"Any decent citizen, or even person wishing to preserve their own life would obey the command of an English policeman - or half a dozen - pointing guns at you."

the innocent have nothing to fear, eh? nice use of cliched langauge.

". . .Britain has turned into a totalitarian hellhole - well I guess stay in the tranquil land of USA and leave us to it."

actually, yeah i think britain has been heading that way in recent years, so i'll stay in the socialist utopia of canada for the time being.

[Dark Knight]

the innocent have nothing to fear, eh? nice use of cliched langauge.

If he hadn't of ran he wouldn't have been shot, is what I was getting at. Please feel free to link to any recent history example that contradicts.

[Suicidal Zebra]

". . .Britain has turned into a totalitarian hellhole - well I guess stay in the tranquil land of USA and leave us to it."

I missed that tidbit of clichéd language, who said that again? He's got a good sense of homour whomever he is.

Oh, and we don't really mind you staying in Canada... you see we are using you all as a buffer between us and the Quebecers.

[Dark Knight]

I missed that tidbit of clichéd language, who said that again? He's got a good sense of homour whomever he is.
I have, thanks. ;)

View post number 62, above.

CTM quoted me out of context and clipped which changed the meaning. tsk tsk.

Ah well, its all good. :buddies:

[Suicidal Zebra]

erm... that 'homour' wasn't intended in case you were wondering, should have been 'humour' :embarrass

[Gaza0469]

Lets play a little game...view the image below and respond "what would you do":

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/397798/2/Man_pointing_a_gun_.jpg

A) Run
B) Some crazy ninja stuff
C) Whatever the hell he says.


Thats priceless =P

So true who the hell runs from ppl with guns.

[CTM]

out of context would be a stretch. you told people what to do in regards to some of their beliefs, and i accepted your purposal. saying that i screwed up and only copied part of your quote is much more accurate because the context was still there.

i don't see the sense in linking to something, because you're delving heavily into the realm of theory at this point. it's speculation at best to say what would have happened. Anyways, you are missing the point, which was that you are just as guilty of cliched rhetoric as anyone else. if you want me to link articles with what could maybe have happened theories, i can.

Suicidal Zebra, if you don't enjoy quebecers, that is your loss. going to quebec is a great time. ontario is what you should probably want us to shield you from.

[Dark Knight]

Edit: (http://www.spikedhumor.com/Article.aspx?id=188)
post removed: Not wasting my time in this thread any more. I leave you with Vader scratching. (http://www.spikedhumor.com/Article.aspx?id=188)

[SaroDarksbane]

No Saros, you don't play 'chicken' with armed police. Maybe in America (but I doubt it).

In England, in the very rare occasion that a police officer shouts "stop / dont move / etc" and is pointing a gun at you, that means that if you run you WILL get shot.
But did they shoot him while he was running? Or are you telling me that anyone who runs should be tackled, then shot? No, the police in the US don't tackle people, then shoot them. And if they do, it's certainly not a policy.
If its acceptable to run from armed police then why would they bother carrying guns and pointing them at you in the first place.
In case you didn't run, but instead reached for something in your pocket?
You are also continuing to labor under the misapprehension that this demonstrates our giving up rights; ignoring the blatantly obvious opinion people have that if you run from armed police then you expect what you get, let alone in the context of recent terrorism.
Obviously he didn't expect to get his head blown off, nor would I.
Vaguely reminiscent of some punk kid getting arrested and shouting "I know my rights!!!";like the law is optional when you want it to be.
Who said the law was optional? I think my argument is more along the lines of "Let the punishment fir the crime."

Lets play a little game...view the image below and respond "what would you do":

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/397798/2/Man_pointing_a_gun_.jpg

A) Run
B) Some crazy ninja stuff
C) Whatever the hell he says.
1. How close is he? If he's a foot from the guy, how did the guy manage to run so far?
2. If the man with the gun is not close to him, he could be relatively sure that he could get away should the person start shooting. Apparently, given the fact that they didn't shoot him from range, he was correct and your scenario is flawed anyway.

FREEZE DK! I have a homing beacon on you and I'm pointing a gun in your direction right now. Don't try to run, or I'll shoot!

[Kosmo]

I say that runing away from police it is stupid, but I saw some crowd control training movies and they gave examples of people hiding in the closet when the fire alarm sounded on a ship.
Why should someone on a burning ship lock himself in a tight place?
When scared some do crazy things and in this case I mean not just the victim, but the police as well. Why they let him board a bus and why they did not fire at him outside the tube when he started to run?
I think that the victim is not the only one that got scared!

[DrunkCajun]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-08/17/content_3367447.htm

LONDON, Aug. 17 (Xinhuanet) -- A leaked report has alleged serious police blunders in the shooting of an innocent Brazilian man in the wake of the abortive London bombings in mid July, Sky news reported Wednesday.

Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead by anti-terrorist officers at Stockwell tube station in south London in the mistaken belief he was linked to the failed July 21 bomb attempts.

Documents leaked to ITV (Independent Television) News suggest Menezes did not flee from armed officers by vaulting over barriers before getting onto an underground train, where the officers opened fire.

The Brazilian was not even seen leaving the flats in Tulse Hill which was under surveillance because one of the officers was "relieving himself."

But during his journey to the underground station officers decided he matched the description of one of two terror suspects, including Hussein Osman, the alleged attempted bomber at another tube station.

The leaked report says Menezes entered the station at a normal walking pace and picked up a copy of a free newspaper.

He was seen to slowly descend the escalators before running for a train and sitting down.

The report also indicated the 27-year-old was wearing a light denim jacket and not the heavily padded coat as initially claimed.

Witnesses said that he was not aware he was being followed until shot dead on the Tube.

But the report says "CCTV captured Menezes running across the concourse and entering the carriage before sitting down.

"Almost simultaneously, armed officers were provided with positive identification."

One police officer was quoted as saying he was able to grab Menezes and pin his arms to his side before the shooting started.

The report also said a post mortem examination showed that Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, but three other bullets missed.

The new account was said to have been obtained from the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigating into the killing of the electrician.

"It raises very, very serious questions about the shoot-to-kill policy and shows immediate questions need to be asked about whether this policy should be in operation and how dangerously wrong it can go," said Harriet Wistrich, lawyer for the Menezes family.

"The family have always known that this was absolutely an outrageous mistake, at the very least, and that their son was entirely innocent," noted the lawyer.

Sad. I wonder how many Britons will proudly support this after this gets around.

[Suicidal Zebra]

Sounds like the system screwed up big-time if these leaked reports are true. And then they (inc. Sir Ian Blair) spread information as fact either without check sources properly or in the knowledge that the information was false. Frankly, someone or some group need to be held responsible.

That however does not of course mean I reject the shoot to kill policy in principle. I'm keeping stum on this.

[DrunkCajun]

Reuters (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-08-17T090953Z_01_MCC648513_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-BRITAIN.xml)
Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=aKyLcn2X1w4s&refer=uk)
Financial Times (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/b424e5c8-0f06-11da-8b31-00000e2511c8.html)
Times of London (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1738517,00.html)

By the way, note his jean jacket, not a "heavy coat", in all of the photos of the man's corpse.

Also interesting that it appears that two different police officers' guns were used (according to the FT article).

[rutty]

It's a "leaked report" so we'll have to see if it has any validity. I think in the aftermath of all this we'll probably come to the conclusion that this was a tragic mistake caused by misleading/mistaken intelligence.

[DrunkCajun]

It's a "leaked report" so we'll have to see if it has any validity. I think in the aftermath of all this we'll probably come to the conclusion that this was a tragic mistake caused by misleading/mistaken intelligence.

Information carried by every major news outlet on the planet tends to have some validity, especially after the Newsweek fiasco. At any rate, I think this report explains why there were so many within the police force opposed to an independent investigation. Which makes it that much worse in my opinion.

From where I'm sitting, this report coincides with the evidence presented those first few days a lot more closely than the police allegations did. I can tell you which one leaves less doubt in my mind at this point, but I think you can figure it out.

[rutty]

The shoot to kill policy should stay, but the Police obviously have to improve their intelligence. Their handling of this has been appalling too. No doubt someone will fall on their sword at some point.

When it comes down to it and an armed officer is faced with a real terrorist loaded with explosives I really hope that he/she does not hesitate to blow his head off.

They must follow their rules of engagement - it's just not clear whether this was the case with this poor guy.

[DrunkCajun]

The shoot to kill policy should stay, but the Police obviously have to improve their intelligence. Their handling of this has been appalling too. No doubt someone will fall on their sword at some point.

When it comes down to it and an armed officer is faced with a real terrorist loaded with explosives I really hope that he/she does not hesitate to blow his head off.

They must follow their rules of engagement - it's just not clear whether this was the case with this poor guy.

I should hope those rules of engagement would include not blowing their heads off without being extremely certain this individual was not an innocent civilian calmy sitting down to read a newspaper on the tube. The police are not meant to be judge and jury, at least not in the United States of America. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the British system, but seeing as we adopted our common law and legal culture from the British system, I can't imagine that the two are very different.

[rutty]

Well, the rules of engagement will not be public knowledge, but yes, they should be certain that any person that they are about to shoot would be an immediate threat to those about him.

You know, this is one incident. Just because one guy dies, however tragic that is, it doesn't automatically make the system wrong. Failures within the system should be, and hopefully will be, punished. We'll see when we have the whole facts.

[Suicidal Zebra]

I should hope those rules of engagement would include not blowing their heads off without being extremely certain this individual was not an innocent civilian calmy sitting down to read a newspaper on the tube. The police are not meant to be judge and jury, at least not in the United States of America. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the British system, but seeing as we adopted our common law and legal culture from the British system, I can't imagine that the two are very different.

Well, us Brits are typically a bit more in support of authoritarian measures when we believe it to be necessary than you Yanks (you and your 'liberties', sheesh ;)), but generally you are correct. The Police should not do this unless they are damn, damn sure that the person involved was an immenent threat to the public, and if the leaked report is confirmed I don't see how they could have ever been that sure.

[SaroDarksbane]

Well, us Brits are typically a bit more in support of authoritarian measures when we believe it to be necessary than you Yanks (you and your 'liberties', sheesh ;)), but generally you are correct. The Police should not do this unless they are damn, damn sure that the person involved was an immenent threat to the public, and if the leaked report is confirmed I don't see how they could have ever been that sure.
Are you kidding?

Dark skin? Jean-jacket? Being in the general vicinity of a building under surveillance? And let's not forget, he took a brisk jog to that train after he used his ticket.

His actions were clearly suspicious, you just have to read between the lines a little.