Unless there was something I missed in the article, the policemen took the easy way out. They had no proof this was 100% a terrorist.
If it takes merely two terror attacks for the morality of the British police to crumble, I don't want to know what will be of the Western world a year from now.
May I add that when Israel assassinates CONFIRMED terrorists and ruins houses on the way, numerous pretentious "peace-lovers", a good number of them British, call us Nazis.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I was also kind of shocked when I heard about this -- waiting to hear more detail because all I heard was that he "stumbled or tripped" and they opened fire. Sounded kinda non-conventional to me....
I thought most London Bobbies don't carry guns...
FG
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I was discussing this a little with my husband this morning. We were reflecting that perhaps it is because the police over there are not experienced and properly trained to handle guns, since carrying them is fairly rare.
Really, the way I heard it, the shooting sounded like an act of panic. It sounded more like a freak-out than an act of malicious intent.
-Katarain
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:"A man was challenged by officers and subsequently shot. London Ambulance Service attended the scene. He was pronounced dead at the scene."
Mark Whitby, who was on the train at Stockwell, said the train was stopped and had its doors open when he heard authorities shout: "Get down! Get out!" He saw a man wearing a thick coat running onto the train so fast that he "half-tripped."
The man was being pursued by three men, one carrying a black handgun, Whitby said. When the man tripped, he fell down, and one of the pursuers dropped onto him while another fired five times. (More eyewitness)
With a thick coat in summer, I can understand why they were suspicious. And, in all fairness, they did tell the guy to stop. Still, it seems odd that they would shoot-to-kill the first time (particularly since it could have been a very dumb shoplifter, for all we know). I guess it all depends on what was under the coat, and what evidence/event prompted the chase in the first place.
--j_k
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: Still, it seems odd that they would shoot-to-kill the first time (particularly since it could have been a very dumb shoplifter, for all we know).
I can't say this enough: there is no other way to shoot.
Without commenting on the morality or reasons for the shooting; if a man with a gun says "stop" and you run, expect to die.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: The man, described by passengers as South Asian, was shot was wearing a thick coat when he ran into the Stockwell subway station in south London Friday. Police reportedly began following the man when he left his home in an effort to arrest him. It's believed he may have been the suspect who put the bomb down in the Oval Street Underground station a day before, according to the Sky News reporter at Scotland Yard.
so... they were already following him as a suspect.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Without commenting on the morality or reasons for the shooting; if a man with a gun says "stop" and you run, expect to die.
Not an easy choice there.
If you're not sure the person with the gun is a cop, stopping may also result in death.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Like Farmgirl says, they'd been following him, I'm going to assume that perhaps they had already told him to stop before the train? And he still fled them toward the train station?
That would be mighty suspicious, and given what has recently happened, they may have had good reason to believe that he was going to the train in order to bomb it - so they fired in the belief they were protecting the people on the train from attack.
I can't say whether the shooting was right or wrong without all the facts, but it sounds like they had good reason to suspect he might want to harm others. And in my opinion, the police should shoot to kill and stop a potential terrorist IF they have good reason to suspect it AND he's not complying with them AND he's running toward someplace where he can hurt the public.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Even if this man had not been a suspect, his actions were sufficiently suspect (i.e. dark trenchcoat in the middle of july, dark backpack, running from police into a subway) that the actions of the police can probably be justified. If it turns out to be a mistake, then it's tragic, but still understandable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
From the sounds of it, they were following a man in a heavy coat towards a train station, told him to stop -- and then he fled towards the train?
My first instinct would be to assume that he had a bomb and intended to detonate it aboard the train, and/or use the passengers as hostages.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think my first instinct would be to assume he was trying to escape on a train... unless, of course, I had previous reason to believe he was a terrorist.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Did the policemen clearly shoot in the air beforehand?
And why did they not aim at hislegs but at his head? Surely you do not need to be a perfect marksman for something like that. Quite on the contrary - it's much more difficult to hit the head.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Beanny, I'm not sure that the police were aiming for the head. Most police forces are trained to aim for center mass, not head shots.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Did the policemen clearly shoot in the air beforehand?
And why did they not aim at hislegs but at his head?
No police department protocol EVER tells you to shoot in the air, or aim for legs.
I could go into all the reasons. But I won't.
FG
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It seems excessive. Five shots after someone already jumped on top of him.
It definitely looks like inexperience coupled with high emotion - neither of which are good when dealing with guns.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I think it is the general policy of policement to shoot to kill, not to disable. Shooting to disable generally only works in movies.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I agree also that it seems excessive just from reports we've received , understanding that we weren't there, we weren't them, so we don't know all that transpired.
However, I also understand aiming for the head if they thought the body had a bomb strapped to it...
FG
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
If the person could be wearing a bomb vest with a switch, and my partner had just tackled the suspect, I might be tempted to shoot when the suspect was down, just to keep the person from attempting to detonate the device.
And shooting for the head, when the person may very well be wearing a vest with explosives seems to make perfect sense to me.
Posted by NinjaBirdman (Member # 7114) on :
If the guy had a bomb(or the police even thought he did), the police had to make sure he was dead. I imagine it probably wouldn't take much work to trigger a backpack explosive and they couldn't take the chance to just disable the guy, he had to be killed. I don't think the police had a choice here.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
quote:No police department protocol EVER tells you to shoot in the air, or aim for legs.
I have in front of me the Israeli Law Enforcement rules for opening fire (as part of procedures for arresting a suspect) and they say first to warn, then shoot in the air, then aim to the legs. The orders clearly relate to the need to mitigate the danger to the officer, or to prevent a crime.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Okay - I stand corrected.
No AMERICAN police department protocol that I know of calls for this procedure.
FG
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake:If you're not sure the person with the gun is a cop, stopping may also result in death.
My point is that if someone is waving a gun at you they are threatening your life...
Shooting in the air is dangerously random.
Shoot for the legs? hit the femoral artery and the bad guy is a dead guy.
You do NOT shoot unless you mean to kill. Ever.
We don't know enough about the situation to judge accurately whether the officers were justified in firing, but if they were, they were justified in killing.
Edit to address Beanny's remarks: Israelis have a reputation for extreme training and competency, so they might actually be able to hit the legs with a high degree of certainty, but my point about the femoral artery still goes. Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
In the US, they don't fire a warning shot in the air. Bullets do come back down, after all.
They also don't aim for the legs, because this isn't the easy target most people think it is. Also, shooting for the legs, if you miss, sends a bullet towards a hard surface (the ground) at an angle, which can create ricochets.
American police officers, when required to discharge their sidearms, shoot to kill. This isn't something blood-thirsty. Police officers are trained to only fire when there is a direct and unquestionable threat to themselves or another individual.
They don't shoot because someone starts to run, or throws a rock at someone.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
They did what they had to do
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Shoot in the air in a subway station? I'm not sure if this was underground or not. If it was underground...hello? Ricochet?
Even if it was above ground, shooting into the air in an urban area invites a totally innocent death or injury.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I can understand how you would shoot to kill if you were shooting from a distance, but if you are on top of the person, I think you would have a little more ability to decide where to shoot.
Also, five times seems to be a bit excessive. Was it five times in the head? I would think one headshot at point blank range would be sufficient to disable the threat. Anything more seems like it might have been based more on emotion than anything else.
I'm also assuming he didn't actually have a bomb, or else they would have come out and said, "we shot him because he had a bomb." So any suspicion that they felt was only suspicion. Obviously, since we weren't there, we really can't comment on the legitimacy of what happend, but there are ethical questions that are raised about which personal rights can be sacrificed on the basis of probable cause.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Based only on what we know from reports,(so a lot of assumptions are going to be made here) the suspicious things do seem suspicious, but are they enough to assume that he was a terrorist? Let's look at the three reasons for suspicion.
1. Dark Trenchcoat. Seems unusual, but since he was Asian, it's possible that he was just travelling there. Perhaps he was used to or expecting a colder or wetter climate and so brought with him a trenchcoat. Not being able to carry it easily with his backpack, and not wanting to just leave it behind he decides to wear it. Also, he might have had a condition that explained his nead for a coat. I've grown up with a couple people that have some type of disorder that results in them wearing shorts around in the middle of winter (which is very cold here in Minnesota). So that may be a little suspicious, but nothing more.
2. Backpack. It's not unusual to have a backpack or briefcase, especially if you are travelling.
3. Running from police. If we justify a policeman panicking at an inappropriate time, it's not stretching the imagination to expect a common person to panic, especially if bombs are going off.
To illustrate: Imagine if you were a black person in the U.S. a hundred years ago and were alone in a house with a white woman. Let's say she screamed (maybe she saw a mouse) and all the neighbors heard her scream. There is no reason for you to be worried because there is nothing wrong with the situation, but fearing the reaction of the neighbors you panic and run out of the house. The neighbors see this and get very suspicious. They link your running with the girl's screaming and assume that you must be running because you must be guilty. Not wanting you to get away with committing a crime, the neighbors chase you down and shoot you in the head. When the girl tells them that there was no crime, the killers not wanting to admit guilt, assume that out of shame she must be hiding the truth. Thereafter it is declared that the death was justified because of the crime that was committed.
In a tense situation, things can get out of control pretty quickly. What the police did was understandable considering the situation, but it shouldn't be justified (at least with the information that we have). To justify this would be to set a precedent for the power that the government can employ based only on inconclusive suspicions.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
A couple of years ago, our local sheriff shot a guy specifically in the leg. The kid ( about age 19) was carrying a hunting rifle, IIRC. I don't know if this is standard policy, (it was a standoff situation with several cops using their cars as shields, and the suspect standing on the porch of his home, I think) but this is what went down.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
1} The SpecialUnit officers followed him from his home. The UK and Europe has been experiencing near-record and record-breaking hot weather since before Spring. There is no plausible reason to be dressed for winter. 2) All the terrorist bombs were carried in backpacks. At this time in London, no reasonable person carrying a backpack could find that a request by police officers to stop for questioning to be unreasonable. 3) The officers gave chase all the way up until he attempted to board a train car.
Y'd hafta be a total nutcase to not do everything within your power to stop a train-bombing suspect from boarding a traincar loaded with people after the suicide attacks.
I'da shot the dude when he started to run or started to reach for anything on his person. There ain't no way that I'd risk having a suspected suicide-bomber trigger a detonator. But apparently, the Government was very interested in extracting the maximum amount of information from the suspect. And the SpecialUnit was under orders to give him maximum leeway to contact others of his group, and to make the maximum effort to take him alive. Right now, those SpecialUnit officers are quite probably being verbally flayed by their superiors for killing a lead.
And frankly, saying "American police are better trained." and "American police officers wouldn't shoot unarmed suspects." is deliberately ignorant jingoism.
[ July 22, 2005, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: And frankly, saying "American police are better trained." and "American police officers wouldn't shoot unarmed suspects." is deliberately ignorant jingoism.
I don't think anyone said this...?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
um, camus...your illustration makes no sense here.
1)This involves police, not random neighbors 2)The police tried to get him to stop 3)This was not a black guy in america 100 years ago
regardless of his reasons for wearing a coat, he should know better than to run when police tell him to stop. Perhaps he simply paniced as you suggested, but people die from doing stupid things when they panic all the time. This does not put the blame on the others involved, the blame still goes on the person who acted foolishly.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Actually, a quick bit on bobbies and British police, and why they probably had very specific intent and good reason to do what they did:
Whoever said the bobbies don't carry guns is, by and large, correct. However, ~5% of the force is trained to carry sidearms. The screening process to carry said firearm is *extremely* rigorous. All of them are over a certain age (I want to say 30 or 35) and are psychologically evaluated for issues like anger management and impulsiveness. They only allow officers who are proven to have stable lives and stable temperaments to carry guns. (Most of the time, those bobbies who carry sidearms are middle-aged, married, and have children.) They also undergo countless hours of training with said sidearms before they are allowed to carry them in the streets.
Really, Britain has one of the best in-house intelligence operations in the world. I do not doubt they had serious, utterly incriminating evidence on this guy. Otherwise, this would not have happened. And honestly, I don't expect to know exactly what that evidence was. MI5 is just that good.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Wow, so much speculation.
First, the point about always shooting to kill is absolutely valid. In the US Military, you can be tried and thrown in prison for not aiming at center-mass.
Second, most bombs in Isreal are detonated remotely, usually with a cell-phone. This is done so the person walking the bomb into the area cannot back-out. I wouldn't go into assuming (in Hollywood-style) that this guy had a trigger mechanism.
Third, the man had wires hanging all over the place, which is a dead give-away that he's got a bomb.
Fourth, I wouldn't believe the report that says he was shot while a partner was on top of him. That's crazy. No person trained in firearms would fire his weapon while it's pointed anywhere near anything they didn't intend to kill.
From what we've heard so far, I believe the police to be completely justified in taking this guy out.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
The "Scotland Yard" admits: the suspect was not involved in the terror attack in the subway on thursday.
They express their sorrow for his death...
Crazy theory: the suspect in fact was involved in the attack, or at least in some form of terror organization - and the policeman who shot him is involved in terror as well and didn't want any evidence to be revealed. *stops reading Harry Potter 7 estimation threads*
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I thought they recanted that statment and the suspect was indeed involved.
I need to go read-up...
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
I didn't see any updates. Here's a BBC Link Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
I dont think you can fault these policemen for shooting this guy. They believed he was going to detonate a bomb on a train, If I was in the same situation I believe I would do the same thing. Officers cannot risk this sort of thing, had the officers not shot this man and he had detonated a bomb people would be angry he did not shoot the suspect.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
quote:I dont think you can fault these policemen for shooting this guy.
Of course you can. The moment your security forces starting shooting people "just in case", it's time to be very very worried.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kasie H: Really, Britain has one of the best in-house intelligence operations in the world. I do not doubt they had serious, utterly incriminating evidence on this guy. Otherwise, this would not have happened. And honestly, I don't expect to know exactly what that evidence was. MI5 is just that good.
I find your faith in government touching but misguided. Along with the others in this thread who expressed similar views. Mistakes happen, even to highly trained cops. Thanks for the info on the armed bobbies.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:The moment your security forces starting shooting people "just in case", it's time to be very very worried.
What the heck are you talking about! When was this ever a "just in case" shooting?! Where did you find that quote?
Holy cow, man! This person was running from police, with a coat on, with wires, running toward a subway! After repeatedly refusing to obey police, he was shot for what appears to be good reason.
Keep your facts straight, and quit making up quotes (if that's what you did).
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
scottneb, where did you read that the dead suspect had wires showing?
I read several different news stories and saw no mention of wires.
Also, eyewitnesses said he had no back pack either.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I've got to find the story that says that he had wires. Hang on a sec.
...and I agree that he didn't have a back-pack. But, he had a thick coat on in the middle of one of the hottest July's London has had.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The CBC had a bit of information about it on the Saturday night news broadcast. They said that the dead man was Brazilian and that as far as anybody knows -- including the police -- he had no connection to any of the other attacks. Nobody has gone so far as to say he was innocent, however, and I imagine that'll take longer to establish one way or another.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:Police say the man they shot dead at a London Underground station was a Brazilian national "not connected" with this week's attempted bombings on the city's transit system.
This is why police must not shoot to kill in such a situation, even if that means they can't shoot at all. Now, not only is Britain facing the aftermath of several serious terrorist attacks, but it is also facing a scandal that suggests the police's attempt to fight that terrorist threat amounts to little more than shooting innocent foreign-looking people. This may not be the case, but I am sure it will still look that way nonetheless, and thus hurt any anti-terror efforts.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Er... scottneb, I wasn't actually quoting anyone, using quotes for, you know "emphasis" with a dash of irony, particularly since I feel that that's exactly what they did.
They were holding him down. They shot him five times in the head. He had nothing to do with the bombings. That counts as "just in case" in my book.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Update: it appears that early reports were wrong: Jean de Menezes wasn't wearing a bulky coat but a denim jacket, no backpack, and no wires. And he didn't run from police, but apparently ran, after getting off an escalator, to catch a train.
quote:ITV News reported Tuesday that de Menezes was not carrying any bags when he entered the Stockwell Tube station where he was killed and was wearing a denim jacket, rather than a bulky coat as police had previously said.
De Menezes walked at a normal pace, did not vault any barriers and even stopped to pick up a newspaper, ITV reported.
He descended to the train slowly on an escalator, then ran toward the open subway car and took a seat, according to ITV, which based its account on a document outlining what was captured on surveillance footage.
[from second link]At about the same time, armed officers were provided with positive identification that de Menezes was either Hussain Osman, one of the suspected bombers from the day before, or another suspect, at which point he was shot, ITV News reported.
According to the network, the crucial mistake that led to de Menezes' death may have occurred that morning as he left his apartment and was spotted by surveillance officers, who misidentified him as a possible terrorist.
The first link has a photo of de Menezes, dead in the subway car, wearing a denim jacket.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Wow.
Man, that is a terrible incident. The police definitely have something to answer for.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Interestingly enough, even this horrendously bad publicity is only a minor issue.
See, the PR people who managed this shooting were brilliant. They spread reports phrased as hearsay that made the guy seem guilty as sin, when clearly things were known otherwise (its easy enough to verify if a guy what a guy was wearing when you're the ones who killed him and can see his dead body right in front of you!), which energized people who would criticize the police.
Now, when a correction comes out its a much more minor story, as "the story" has already been covered, despite the fact that the original story was incredibly messed up. Corrections are never paid as much attention to as original stories.
So the defensiveness about the police is still largely in place among the general public who noted the first story, but not the correction, which will be large swathes of them.
This sort of thing isn't uncommon at all; the bush administration are masters of it and variants.
For instance, they got lots of great press from the state of the union where Bush mentioned Americorps and vowed to greatly increase enrollment . . . despite that he put no particular political leverage into doing so, and Americorps had to cut the number of volunteers in half due to funding cuts (which look like a total funding increase on paper but include requiring americorps to pay for certain things it didn't have to before).
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
What PR people? From the government? From the police? I guess I'm more inclined to think that the PR people gave bad information they thought was true, than to believe that they deliberately and maliciously lied to the media. Maybe the media published hearsay on their own, not to protect anyone, but simply because they needed to get the story out quickly.
I wonder, which would be better for circulation: Police heroically stop suicide bomber, or Police stupidly shoot innocent foreigner? The second is more shocking, the first is perhaps more personal (since it removes a threat to the average London subway user).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Part of the beautiful part of a good PR job is its difficult tracing where the information came from. All the government would have to do, for instance, to take care of this PR job completely truthfully, would be to find one or two practically delusional witnesses (they always exist) and make sure all the media outfits heard their stories.
Might the media have constructed the entire story on their own? Possibly, but when I see such an perfect snowjob I have an extremely hard time believing there wasn't at least minimal intervention to try for the "rosiest" place on things from the start.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
I'm curious to hear what the people who initially thought this shooting was justfied have to say now.
quote: IDENTIFICATION Initial account Sir Ian Blair said on the day of the shooting that it had been "directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation".
The man was under observation because he emerged from a block of flats in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, where police believed a man connected with the four attempted bombings on the London Tube and bus network on 21 July was staying.
They followed him during his bus journey to Stockwell Tube station, where a Scotland Yard spokesman said his "clothing and behaviour" added to their suspicions.
Leaked evidence Police staking out the flats, where Mr Menezes lived, decided he matched the description of one of the suspects they were seeking, according to the documents. One officer reportedly said he "checked the photographs" and "thought it would be worth someone else having a look". However, he was unable to video the man for subsequent confirmation because he was "relieving" himself at the time.
By the time Mr Menezes reached Stockwell station, armed police received "positive identification" that the man they were following was one of the suspects.
CLOTHING Initial account One eyewitness, Mark Whitby, said Mr Menezes was wearing a thick padded jacket, despite the warm weather, which could have been used to conceal something underneath. Another witness said he had a black baseball cap and blue fleece.
Scotland Yard had said on the day that his clothing had added to suspicions but had not elaborated further. Leaked evidence Some of the leaked documents and accompanying CCTV footage suggest Mr Menezes was wearing a blue denim jacket. This is also referred to by a member of the police surveillance team who observed him on board a Tube train.
PURSUIT Initial account Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said after the shooting: "As I understand the situation the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions." One eyewitness said at the time that Mr Menezes had vaulted over the ticket barriers just inside the entrance to Stockwell station as he was being pursued.
Leaked evidence CCTV footage is said to show the man walking at normal pace into the station, picking up a copy of a free newspaper and apparently passing through the barriers before descending the escalator to the platform and running to a train. He boarded a Tube train, paused, looking left and right, and sat in a seat facing the platform.
The eyewitness has subsequently told a newspaper that the man he saw vaulting the barrier must have been a police officer.
THE SHOOTING Initial account Although police would not give details of the incident because of the independent investigation, they did say shortly after it happened that officers had shot a man dead in Stockwell station. The following day Scotland Yard admitted Mr Menezes had been shot by mistake and apologised to his family for the "tragedy".
Met chief Sir Ian Blair said his officers had tried to get Mr Menezes under control before shooting him.
A witness spoke of a man jumping on to the stationary train and grabbing a man sitting opposite. As the witness ran off the train he heard four "dull bangs", which he realised were shots.
Another said he saw Mr Menezes run on to the train, "hotly pursued" by what he took to be three plain-clothes police officers. He said they pushed him to the floor and shot him five times.
At the opening of the inquest into his death, police told the coroner Mr Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder. Leaked evidence In one of the leaked documents, said to be a statement from one of the police surveillance team designated Hotel 3, the witness describes hearing shouting - including the word "police". The statement says Mr Menezes stood up and advanced towards the witness and armed police.
He adds: "I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side."
He said he pushed the man back into his seat.
It was only after he had restrained him that he heard a gun shot.
The documents say that a post-mortem examination showed Mr Menezes had been shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, but that three other bullets had missed him.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
From my previous post:
quote:I can't say whether the shooting was right or wrong without all the facts, but it sounds like they had good reason to suspect he might want to harm others. And in my opinion, the police should shoot to kill and stop a potential terrorist IF they have good reason to suspect it AND he's not complying with them AND he's running toward someplace where he can hurt the public. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those words I put in all caps at the end are the significant ones - if the new reports are true they did not have good reason to suspect him so in that case I agree it wasn't justified.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)