You can be tackled and arrested just for standing still? What if the guy was deaf? Then, since his back was turned to the cops, he wouldn't have had a clue what was going on until he was taken down.
This is either shoddy reporting or awful policing. I'm hoping it's the former.
[ April 11, 2005, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Miro ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
You have to admit it's pretty dumb to just stand in front of the Capitol with two suitcases and ignore a bunch of policemen telling you to leave.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I was just looking at the White House after I'd purchased some new luggage...no need to get so rough...
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Anyways...without knowing the details of this particular case... people don't seem to realize just how many tourists are in the capital on any given day. I had the (unfortunate) luck to be leaving D.C. on Sunday and forgot about the Cherry Blossom Festival. The police had many of the cross streets closed so I was forced to go all the way down Connecticut to Constitution (turning a 10 minute drive into a 1 hour and 15 minute torture session). There were so many pedestrians (some carrying their luggage ) that the streets were at a stand-still.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Miro, your impression is understandable given the quality of the articles in question. Better story in the Post:
quote: While Capitol Police engaged the man in discussion, a four-person assault team quietly moved into position behind him using the cover of a natural stone wall, said Terrance W. Gainer, chief of the U.S. Capitol Police. During their discussions, police could see no indications that the man had wires attached to the bags, Gainer said, and his hands were free.
The team members eventually rushed the man and tackled him, Gainer said.
...
Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William H. Pickle Jr. said police first became suspcious while questioning the man. "They approached him to talk to him. He became nervous, evasive and stopped communicating with them," Pickle said. "He basically moved the suitcases closer to his sides and positioned himself between them. What he did was enough to make the police back away, and he refused to talk and to answer questions."
So it's not like they just tackled him - they talked to him first. He refused to answer questions. SO the upshot is it looks like shoddy reporting.
Dagonee
[ April 11, 2005, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
It doesn't sound like they only asked him a few times either.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I'll be interested to see what the details turn out to be on this. Right now, the accounts are really sketchy - and mostly from the same AP source.
Capitol police are in a tough bind - overreaction or underreaction are both dangers to watch out for. Considering the consquences of underreaction, they're probably more worried about underreacting.
While it looks like they went in heavy-handed, it sounds like they didn't actually hurt the guy (although the part about him being "dragged away" leaves room for that possibility).
I'm not a fan of heavy-handed police tactics in general. But if they were worried enough to evacuate part of the building, it's obvious the situation tweaked a number of people up a chain of command.
So, I really do want to hear what the explanation is for this - the man's apparent failure to respond to police and if his luggage contained more than personal items such as clothing.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Thanks, Dag. Makes a lot more sense now. Based on the Post article, I can at least give the cops the benefit of the doubt. It does seem odd that someone can be arrested for so little, though. What are the standards for a case like this?
Edit: What sndrake said.
[ April 11, 2005, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Miro ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Dumb, possibly. But then police don't own citizens. Pathetic really. "Lawmakers praise police terrorized by man standing in public." As absurd as the ElianGonzalez raiders. Where do they recruit these characters?
[ April 11, 2005, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Thanks, Dag. The Post article was a lot better. If it's accurate, it looks like a pretty appropriate and measured response. I expect we'll probably get more over the next 24 hours.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I particularly want to know what's in the suitcase they used the water cannon on.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Given the highly sensitive nature of the location, the police were probably erring on the side of caution.
quote:A Sydney man is under arrest in the United States after being crash-tackled by guards outside Washington's Capitol building because police feared he might have had a bomb.
The man was flattened by security guards and dragged away after he stood silently outside the Capitol with his head bowed, his hands behind his back and two suitcases at his feet.
He had reportedly asked to see President George Bush.
The Washington Post quoted Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency official Allan Doody as saying the black-clad man was Wenhao Zhao, 33, of Australia.
US Capitol chief of police Terrance Gainer said security officers believed he could have been a suicide bomber and took no chances, evacuating the area and closing off streets for three hours.
Bomb experts later blew up one of the bags when the man refused to open it or reveal what was in it.
It is believed his luggage contained a CD, a watch and personal belongings - but no explosives.
The incident, which occurred during one of Washington's busiest tourist seasons, led police to evacuate the West Lawn and briefly bar tourists from the Capitol.
An officer first saw the man standing near a fountain with a suitcase on either side of him, staring silently at the building, Mr Gainer said. "He only would say at first that he wanted to speak to the President."
Four officers crept up one of the walled pathways behind him. The man briefly turned and saw them as they crouched behind a wall. After he turned back to the building, they came over the wall and dragged him away.
The man is expected to be charged with disorderly conduct for allegedly failing to obey a police officer.
- AAP
[ April 12, 2005, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I really can't fault the officers for their reaction at this point.
Not that this policy would really have stopped a suicide bomber, but oh well.
-Trevor
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It would have, actually, because at the first sign of police he would have rushed the WH, and that would have been enough proof of his intent right there.
Kwea
[ April 12, 2005, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Or detonated his load.
And not to say I've considered being a suicide bomber, but if I'm walking into a highly secured target like, say, the White House, I probably would have used a deadman's switch instead of hoping I could trigger the explosives before being swarmed.
-Trevor
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
The frightening aspect to suicide bombers is that no level of security can fully insulate you from the effects. This same man could just as easily have walked half a block away and killed hundreds of tourists enjoying the cherry blossoms, and no number of police could have stoppped him. So in that context, it seems silly to have tackled him.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
He could have been probing reaction, reaction times of Capitol police to a man standing next to suitcases awaiting the President's (or other high advisor's) appearance on the lawn. I'm sure that such information on WhiteHouse security would be of interest to AlQaeda/etc inregard to the feasibility of (suitcase)bombing.
[ April 15, 2005, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Gauging reaction time would be useful assuming that someone intended on getting somewhere before detonating a bomb. What makes that an unfeasible explanation for this situation is that the Capitol (to a degree) and the White House (completely) are inaccessible to this type of bum-rush and explode tactic.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Well, no. The dude did walk up to the WhiteHouse fence with a couple of suitcases which could have contained more than 10times* the explosives&etc as that carried by a typical suicide bomber. And a highly directionalized detonation -- a "Claymore mine" if you will -- can multiply lethal distance considerably.
What lowers the probability of a successful attack against a highly-visible public figure to an improbability is the quick recognition of a possible threat and a quick reaction time by the security personnel.
* As a preteen, I carried the family's 110pounds/50kilograms of two non-wheeled suitcases -- more than I weighed at the time -- on a rather long airport walk from the regional commuter-flight gate to the international-flight gate. (Shoulda told the international check-in clerk, "I just flew in from Tennessee. And boy are my arms tired.") I'm sure an incentivized adult could carry more, expecially if s/he used rolling suitcases.
[ April 15, 2005, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Power of explosives fall with the cube of the distance, right? I think I read somewhere that barriers even 20 yards away would prevent most "pancaking" results from truck bombs, although it would still allow significant penetration and damage.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Lethal distance inregard to a shockwave decreases as the cuberoot of the square of the decrease in explosive power*. If the point is assassination, not talking of pancaking anything. Just using explosives to launch a shower of ball bearings in the general direction of the target. If ya can't aim a bullet, you launch a thousand(poison)"bullet"s to increase the probability of a kill.
* From (possibly mis)memory: haven't thought about it for a while. Got an errand at the moment. Back to you after I give it some thought.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, OK. I knew it was something like that.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
You were right. Definite mismemory on my part. The area of blast(only)destruction increases as the square of the cuberoot of the increase in explosive power. But that particular area&distance is relevant to "pancaking". Projectiles travel farther.
[ April 15, 2005, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
) that the streets were at a stand-still.