London Shooting: What would you have do?

[Smurf]

The reference to the new policy being called operation Krakos came from an aticle I read re a statement from a member of the British gov't but I can't find the link now. However perhaps there is enough in the examples above to convince you there has been a change in policy on use of deadly force.

That's because you spelled it wrong.
Operation Kratos

 

[Andy]

Where are these facts that you keep talking about arildino? All i can see around here is speculation.

 

[arildno]

Let us take this in detail:
PART 1

He ran from armed police

A severe distortion of reality, since it without foundation insinuates that De Menzes knew they were from the police:

A)The most common reason why people run from others, is that they are frightened by the others, or don't want the others to catch up with them.

B)The second most common reason is that the person is just running, but not running away from these others (i.e, it was a misperception that he was running away from anyone)

C) There has not surfaced any evidence that De Menzes ran away from the police other than due to some reason falling under either A) and B).
Thus, it is most probable that the reason is to be found either under A) or B), and of those the most probable is that his reason falls under A)


Does anyone disagree with this?

 

[arildno]

Where are these facts that you keep talking about arildino? All i can see around here is speculation.

So, it was a speculation on my part that he:
1) Didn't have a bomb on him?
2) That he had work permit in the UK?
3) That he had no criminal record, nor no evidence has surfaced that he was engaged in criminal activity?
4) That he held a steady job as an electrician?
5) That he was shot in the head 5 times?

 

[Anttech]

No speculation, you get 100% top marks :-)

I read somewhere that the train was about to leave the platform? Perhaps he was running to catch the train...

I can't believe people are actually defending the actions of the police.. really amazes me...

 

[arildno]

Still waiting for Andy's admission that I have posted lots of facts..

 

[Delta]

He was an innocent, remember that!.

1) Didn't have a bomb on him?
2) That he had work permit in the UK?
3) That he had no criminal record, nor no evidence has surfaced that he was engaged in criminal activity?
4) That he held a steady job as an electrician?

How many times! None of this was known at the time.

 

[Andy]

I think de menzes was just a scared young man in the wrong place (leaving the flat/apartement/house) at the wrong time. He pannicked and because of that it made the officers assume that he was a terrorist.

With hindsight it is easy to judge, but these guys had to act as quickly as possible to try and prevent another disaster from happening. If the police officers did not react the way they did then de menzes would still be alive.

But ask yourself this, If de menzes had been a terrorist with a bomb hidden under his jacket and the police failed to stop him reaching the subway, then he could have killed hundreds of innocent people. And the police would be being blamed for that aswell.

As much as i think the whole operation was a big **** up, i still believe that it is the only course of action that those officers could have taken at that time under those circumstances.

 

[Burnsys]

I Propose a new poll:

Poll: You are a brazilian electrician who is late for work, you are late for work and the train is almost leaving, you hear someone screaming at you but you don't understand what they tell you so you keep running... What do you do?

1. You get 5 shots in the forehead
2. You get killed with 5 shots in the head
2. You are take down to the ground and shoted 5 times in the head.

 

[Andy]

None of your facts have any relevance on why he was shot.

He didnt have a bomb, well if he was a suicide bomber and he did have a bomb it would be pretty stupid to ask him wouldn't it.

Terrorists don't need work permits.

He could have been a a saudi construction worker for all they knew.

How could they check his criminal record when they didnt know who he was until after the incident?

 

[Andy]

very funny burnsy, you should do stand up mate!

 

[Burnsys]

But ask yourself this, If de menzes had been a terrorist with a bomb hidden under his jacket and the police failed to stop him reaching the subway, then he could have killed hundreds of innocent people. And the police would be being blamed for that aswell.

They also failed to stop him from reaching the subway anyway...

 

[Andy]

Because he ran away when challenged.

 

[Smurf]

But ask yourself this, If de menzes had been a terrorist with a bomb hidden under his jacket and the police failed to stop him reaching the subway, then he could have killed hundreds of innocent people. And the police would be being blamed for that aswell.

If he was a terrorist with a suicide vest (since he didn't have a bag this is the only other option really) then he would've blown himself up before the cops got to him. or he would've blown himself up as soon as the cops pointed a gun at him. Either way people still would've died. THATS THE POINT! They botched EVERY ASPECT of the job, and an innocent man lost his life because of it. And it if he wasn't innocent, INNOCENT PEOPLE WOULD'VE LOST THEIR LIVES BECAUSE THEY LET HIM GO INTO A POPULATED AREA!

As much as i think the whole operation was a big **** up, i still believe that it is the only course of action that those officers could have taken at that time under those circumstances.

They could've stopped before he entered the station, padded him down, and then left him alone.

They could've properly communicated that he was not a risk but was to be followed and watched.

They could've identified themselves properly, or not at all. (if they had thought he was a bomber, why did they identify themselves? Why didn't they do it properly - they messed everything up, how can you say it was the best course of action? Or the ONLY one!?)

 

[arildno]

DELTA:
1.But it seems you do not understand how crucial these pieces of facts are in giving us insight in De Menzes' character.

2.Furthermore, ONLY by knowing what sort of man De Menzes was, can we make the all-important judgment on WHETHER OR NOT THE STORY OF TOLD BY THE POLICE SHOULD BE REGARDED AS THE TRUTH OR A LIE.

If De Menzes' reported behaviour pattern simply does not fit what we have learned about the guy, then there must be a flaw somewhere:
1) Either in the info we have on De Menzes
2) In the story told by the police
3) Or in our deductions based on (presumably true) 1), on how De Menzes would react.


It is only by this type of analysis that we can ascertain whether the still relevant issue of 2) is cause for alarm, or that we can say the police did its job.

Therefore, FACTS about De Menzes are crucial in any serious analysis of the tragedy.

 

[Art]

That's because you spelled it wrong.
Operation Kratos

Thanks Smurf, buddy Next time I see a Dane I'll stick a (fish)finger in his eye for you

 

[Burnsys]

andy., the problem with this kind of incident is that it set the precedent so the antiterrorist unit now can kill anyone they want and get away with it...

tomorrow may be one of the antiterrorist pals has a debt to someone, he can chase him down, place 5 shots in his head and say he thought he was a terrrorist... simply as that. No wonder if UK government think some people is pissing them off and is in their way. supected terrorist. bang... no more problem. This kind of things require the government to be all benevolent and corruption free, if not. you have no idea the power this things gives the government.

 

[Andy]

Tell me when the police would have had the chance to assess whether he was a risk or not?

I agree they should have stopped him a longtime before the station but that was one of their superiors faults for not giving them clearer instructions on what they should do.

 

[vanesch]

None of your facts have any relevance on why he was shot.

He didnt have a bomb, well if he was a suicide bomber and he did have a bomb it would be pretty stupid to ask him wouldn't it.

Terrorists don't need work permits.

He could have been a a saudi construction worker for all they knew.

How could they check his criminal record when they didnt know who he was until after the incident?

In what way does your logic prevent police from just shooting down just every slightly color-skinned person who approaches a railway station ?
"They MIGHT carry a bomb and kill a lot of innocents"
"There's no way to find out until we blow their brains out"
"Cannot check their background: imagine they blow themselves up before"

After all, this IS a policy that might reduce subway bombing. Until now, all bombers were dark-skinned.

 

[arildno]

Tell me when the police would have had the chance to assess whether he was a risk or not?

They had the damn house under surveillance!
What the hell did they do during all that time?

And again, no evidence has surfaced that De Menzes could be the cause for instituting that surveillance in the first place.

 

[Andy]

How does killing an innocent man set a precedent for the governement to kill more innocent people? It actually makes it harder for them now every single action that the police take is going to be screwtinised by the worlds media. They won't be able to get away with anything.

 

[Andy]

Could they see inside the house? And up until a few days after the event did they find out that he wasnt the cause for the surveilance, or that he wasnt a terrorist.

Hindsight is a fantastic thing isn't it.

 

[Joel]

the antiterrorist unit now can kill anyone they want and get away with it...

This is the part where I disagree. I think we ought to see what follows from this incident and only then judge what whom can get away with.

 

[arildno]

DELTA:
1.But it seems you do not understand how crucial these pieces of facts are in giving us insight in De Menzes' character.

2.Furthermore, ONLY by knowing what sort of man De Menzes was, can we make the all-important judgment on WHETHER OR NOT THE STORY OF TOLD BY THE POLICE SHOULD BE REGARDED AS THE TRUTH OR A LIE.

If De Menzes' reported behaviour pattern simply does not fit what we have learned about the guy, then there must be a flaw somewhere:
1) Either in the info we have on De Menzes
2) In the story told by the police
3) Or in our deductions based on (presumably true) 1), on how De Menzes would react.

It is only by this type of analysis that we can ascertain whether the still relevant issue of 2) is cause for alarm, or that we can say the police did its job.

Therefore, FACTS about De Menzes are crucial in any serious analysis of the tragedy.

Reposting a previous post.

 

[arildno]

Could they see inside the house? And up until a few days after the event did they find out that he wasnt the cause for the surveilance, or that he wasnt a terrorist.

Hindsight is a fantastic thing isn't it.

Andy:
This is called lying. They are lying to you.

 

[Andy]

The facts about de menzes wherent available to the officers at the time when they made their decision. If they knew he wasnt a terrorist then they wouldn't have followed him. But they didnt know that he wasnt a terrorist and with his actions (which where very suspicious under the circumstances) it led the officers into making the decision that they did.

 

[Burnsys]

How does killing an innocent man set a precedent for the governement to kill more innocent people? It actually makes it harder for them now every single action that the police take is going to be screwtinised by the worlds media. They won't be able to get away with anything.

No if the majority of the people is convinced to think they way you do.

 

[Joel]

Reposting a previous post.

Revision is the foundation of all learning.

 

[arildno]

The facts about de menzes wherent available to the officers at the time when they made their decision. If they knew he wasnt a terrorist then they wouldn't have followed him. But they didnt know that he wasnt a terrorist and with his actions (which where very suspicious under the circumstances) it led the officers into making the decision that they did.

Again, you don't appreciate the relevant issues:
We need to find out what type of man De Menzes was, in order to judge whether or not the police is lying about what happened that day.

 

[arildno]

Revision is the foundation of all learning.

I can't see I revised it before reposting it?