Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

London Shooting: What would you have do?

  1. Shoot to kill.

    50.0%
  2. Shoot for a body shot.

    17.6%
  3. Allow the person on the train in the hope of pursuing them further at another station, etc.

    8.8%
  4. Remained uncover and monitor the person.

    23.5%
  1. Jul 25, 2005 #1
    London Shooting: What would you have done?

    A man was pursued by police, suspected of being a suicide bomber and shot dead.

    The man came from a residence under surveillance, but maybe had nothing to do with it. He wore a largish coat, unusual? or is this irrelevant?, he ran (was it from the police or to catch the train?).

    Given the circumstances, put yourself in the position of the armed officer in pursuit seeing the man heading for the tube train at Stockwell.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 25, 2005 #2

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Did we ever get any details as to why they discharged their weapons? Whens the report going to be released.

    And you need to change the situation to make it accurate.
    Take out "is this irrelevant?" "but maybe had nothing to do with it" because thats putting personal bias into the poll along with information we only knew after the fact.

    It is also known that he ran from the police because he jumped over one of those watchamacallits that you step through to get to your train (as opposed to him trying to catch it).

    The officers were also plain-clothesed officers.
     
  4. Jul 25, 2005 #3

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I also want to stress that the police men were undercover in civilian clothes. What if he thought they were criminals about to take him hostage or something. He had 5 shot wounds to the head, doesn't show much control of the police's side.
     
  5. Jul 25, 2005 #4
    I hoped to try and make it as unbiased as possible. I agree that at the time of making the choice we didn't know what we know now. But with my opinion that he did what he could only do, I wanted to give a devils advocate view to each circumstance, and negate each event that supported a shoot to kill decision.

    The important point is to imagine you didn't know anything from after the shooting, what choice would you make?
     
  6. Jul 25, 2005 #5

    enigma

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It was HOT in London that day and he was wearing a coat. He came out of the house which was already under surveillance for suspected terrorist activity and went to the train station. When he got there, he jumped over the fare collection things and RAN towards the train.

    Uh... shoot to kill. If he's disabled, he can still hit the trigger if he's carrying a bomb.
     
  7. Jul 25, 2005 #6

    The police idenified them selves as armed police, then the suspect ran down into the subway, the officers involved were correct to open fire. If they hadn`t and he was a bomber (as they suspected all be it incorrectly in hind sight) and managed to get into the subway and set off an explosive device then the repocutions would have been much greater!
     
  8. Jul 25, 2005 #7

    Art

    User Avatar

    None of the above. The options offered do not gell with what is known so far.

    The facts we (think we) know are;

    i) Team (a) had a block of flats under surveillance and saw a dark skinned man leave the building
    ii) Team (a) whilst realising the man did not match the pics of any of the bombers decided he was worth tailing anyway in case he led to something bigger and so assigned a few of their number to the task.
    iii) Some members of team (a) followed the 'suspect' to a bus stop where he took a 15 min ride to Stockwell tube station.
    iv) At the station team (a) handed over control to team (b) SO19 specialist marksmen.
    v) the 'suspect' entered the station and team (b) made a decision to not allow him to get on a train.
    vi) The suspect got on the train and was shot dead by the members of team (b)

    The circumstances of what occurred in the station are clouded in controversy with wildly differing accounts and so there are no reliable facts available other than that he was shot 8 times..

    However from the information above I believe it is safe to assume that team (a) whilst thinking the 'suspect' was worthy of following did not view him as a primary terrorist candidate because if they did they were grossly incompetent in allowing him to board a bus.
    When control passed to team (b) it appears the level of 'suspicion' was not clearly communicated and so team (b) it seems elevated his standing from the mild suspect status that team (a) had afforded him to a clear and present danger.
    From that point how team (b) reacted is the subject of conjecture as the police, apart from a few unsubstantiated, unattributed leaks to the media have been deafeningly silent on the details.

    However what we do know is that if he had been a suicide bomber several people would have been dead as the police allowed him to spend 26 minutes between leaving his house and shooting him during which time he not only spent 15 mins on a bus but also managed to enter an underground train.

    From this I do not see how it is possible to conclude other than that the police were incompetent in the way they managed this whole episode.

    Edit: Link added - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707480,00.html
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2005
  9. Jul 25, 2005 #8
    The team (a) / team (b) thing is news to me, any sources???

    I guess we can safely assume that if there was a second marksmen team, that they would have been more inclinded towards a shoot to kill decision if given biased information. i.e. he's a terrorist suspect.

    For the purpose of the poll I think we should assume there was only one team, because if that were the case, I would think the shooter would have more doubt than if told he was a terrorist.
     
  10. Jul 25, 2005 #9

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The officer who fired was armed with an automatic pistol (odd) so thats why so many rounds were fired. Its very hard to fire just 1 shot if its on its fully automatic mode.
     
  11. Jul 25, 2005 #10

    Art

    User Avatar

    Appologies I forgot to post the link. Here it is http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707480,00.html
     
  12. Jul 25, 2005 #11
    There is an option you have failed to enter into the poll ...

    "Raid the house for which they had the address 24 hous before."

    If they thought this was where the bombers may be originating from and they had an address, why didn't they go in and clear the premises?
     
  13. Jul 25, 2005 #12

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Considering the news reports say he was shot 5 times instead of 8, perhaps we have no reliable facts. The 5 shots were to the head and torso. The shots may have been at very close range, but it would be hard to miss his head if he were pinned and stationary with the gun against his head.

    The first police warning was when Menezes was outside the station. By time he reached the subway platform and the subway, the chase was in full swing. If none of the witnesses on the subway platform and subway heard a police warning, it is probably likely that no more warnings were being given by that point. They need an eyewitness from outside the subway station.

    I could definitely see a handover from one team to the other contributing to this. In fact, I can practically imagine the conversation about the suspect and the slowly rising stress as it dawned on them that they might be facing a terribly critical decision instead of just accomplishing routine surveillance.
     
  14. Jul 25, 2005 #13
    You say dark skinned man like it makes any difference. I would be willing to bet my house (if i had one) on the officers following any person that left the residence.

    I would like to know the nationalities of the people that vote aswell, i reckon the vast majority of british people will agree on the shoot to kill policy. As for other nationalities who knows?
     
  15. Jul 25, 2005 #14
    You may want to include accurate information?

    Important info..there was a number of suicide bombings on 7/7..on the previous day in question 22/7 there was 4 attempted bombings involving public transport. After being targeted twice in two weeks, what do you thingk the police were doing?

    It is common knowledge that since Sept 11th 2001, there has been, if the circumstances cannot be resolved without the loss of life a :
    SHOOT-TO-KILL-TO-PROTECT policy.

    Emphasis is with the security forces, who have to way situations in real -fast-time. For instance, if there a chance of a suspected suicide bomber actuating a device, then the security forces will:SHOOT(suspect/s)with the intent of instant death, -TO-KILL,in order to PROTECT a larger probable slaughter of innocent life.

    The young lad, Jean Charles De Menezes, who has just been killed in the most horrible of circumstances, quite a disgusting ordeal which ended in his Killing. The Lad was a Brazilian, who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time . He was in the UK working, to pay for cancer treatment for his sick Father back home in Brazil.

    This is really a true tragic story, since it was first announced here in the UK it is quite horrible that, the Police/Security, that were under great pressure and stress, having just seen the Horror's of the Suicide Bombings the previous weeks, and the previous day attempt to invoke carnage, have but a split second, to choose between one life..or many?

    This is all hindsight now, we now know that the young lad was fleeing form his persuers, as he thought he was an illegal, his visa had run out..but he thought he would be deported, but this was not the case.

    Really a tragic killing, could it, under the circumstances been avoided?..under the circumstances of the Young lad..and those of the security forces, I think not. The tension of everyday folk in London has been accelerated due to the terrorist actions, they terrorists, are called this for a specific reason, they distribute unbiased Terror into the live of totally innocent everyday folks.
     
  16. Jul 25, 2005 #15
    I think that's the best/smartest post anyone has posted regarding this whole affair.
     
  17. Jul 25, 2005 #16
    No, they claim he was challenged while he stood in line at a ticket machine inside the station ie. surrounded by people.

    Some of those witnesses have stated that the police did not challenge him with 'STOP, ARMED POLICE' but merely put their blue baseball caps on. Now regardless if the police said it or not, if others around him did not hear the warning (Subway noise, tannoy announcement, whatever) then the fact is, he was NOT warned properly.

    I'm not sure about you but if someone were to point a gun at me, I would not be reading his hat.
     
  18. Jul 25, 2005 #17
    That's just it Andy, It was a block of flats and they had been watching the premesis for 24 hours.

    They DIDN'T follow anyone else.
     
  19. Jul 25, 2005 #18

    Art

    User Avatar

    At the inquest today it was established he was shot 8 times. 7 in the head and 1 in the shoulder.

    This is where the controversy sets in. All information regarding what happened following his arrival at the tube station is highly speculative. The police have yet to make an official statement detailing what happened. So far what has been reported has been the result of unsubstantiated, unattributed leaks by elements within the police to the media accompanied by various often conflicting statements by eye witnesses.

    That's my best guess too. That it was in the handover the situation first began to run out of control.
     
  20. Jul 25, 2005 #19
    Do you think they where the only officers watching the residence? There would have been dozens of officers assigned to the surveilance operation. He may have been the first person to leave the residence or he may have been the second or third. It doesnt really matter, all that matters is that he was followed from the residence. Doesnt matter if he's black, brown or white they would have followed anyone.
     
  21. Jul 25, 2005 #20

    Art

    User Avatar

    They had 26 minutes from when he left the block of flats to when they killed him during which I am sure they could have found a spot to stop and detain him where he would be no danger to anyone.

    And this is why the police leaked to the press that he might be an illegal immigrant to make their story that they challenged him and he ran more believable. Bearing in mind some eye witnesses have said the police did not identify themselves and formally challenge him.

    It could have been stopped 26 minutes earlier if the police had challenged him as he left the block of flats. It was the police created the high pressure situation by allowing him to travel to the tube station.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: London Shooting: What would you have do?
  1. What do you support? (Replies: 97)

Loading...