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.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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....
posted
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is the general policy of policement to shoot to kill, not to disable. Shooting to disable generally only works in movies.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
posted
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 204 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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...?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
