London Shooting: What would you have do?

  • News
  • Thread starter Delta
  • Start date

What would you have done?


  • Total voters
    34
  • #76
The Smoking Man said:
What part of Alabama are you from where you unload a full clip into the base of a skull of a man being pinned to the ground by two other policemen? This gun was a Glock 18: http://www.glock.com/g18.htm [Broken]

You do realize that a Glock 18 has a magazine that has 31 bullets?

Even the rednecks around your place might choose to stop before the face and dental records completely disappeared.

Please recognize something ... these were not typecal police men. They were not even the usual suspects who get handed a weapon for standard use.

These were a special tactical unit for terrorist responses.

A glock 18 IS NOT STANDARD ISSUE.
Oh for the love of... even when I'm more or less in agreement with you on an issue you just have to find some reason to insult me and argue with me I see.

I don't know how these officers were trained. I was just mentioning a policy here that may have some parallel there. Perhaps they are trained to loose a certain number of bullets when shooting to kill and in the tension of the moment the officer reacted on instinct and the training that has been ingrained in him with out really thinking. Perhaps even he simply did it because he was too caught up with adrenaline and such that he wasn't terribly aware of the number of rounds he had shot.

I Don't Know. And I agree that this was a bad reaction in the situation so lay off with the insults, if you don't mind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77
TheStatutoryApe said:
Oh for the love of... even when I'm more or less in agreement with you on an issue you just have to find some reason to insult me and argue with me I see.

I don't know how these officers were trained. I was just mentioning a policy here that may have some parallel there. Perhaps they are trained to loose a certain number of bullets when shooting to kill and in the tension of the moment the officer reacted on instinct and the training that has been ingrained in him with out really thinking. Perhaps even he simply did it because he was too caught up with adrenaline and such that he wasn't terribly aware of the number of rounds he had shot.

I Don't Know. And I agree that this was a bad reaction in the situation so lay off with the insults, if you don't mind.
Sounded more like you were making excuses to me.

Like 'That's pretty common in these here parts'.

It also follows that dead men tell no tales ... or sue for compensation.

His parents will though and they have already been offered something as a settlement.

What can I say but so solly .... don't know if you noticed but it has got a bit heated in here and I just reacted to an absurdity. :blushing:

You have to admit ... I have Andy trying to convince me it was okay to shoot this guy for being a terrorist partially because he was guilty of not being used to the temperature and having the audacity to wear a sweatshirt when it was 68 degrees F.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
310
2
Art said:
Yes they have. As of February this year I believe. Russ seems to believe this was always UK policy.
One wonders if maybe they picked up a few other tricks from the israelis
 
  • #79
russ_watters
Mentor
19,028
5,187
Art said:
You show me where I said police may shoot to disable only. Please don't start creating strawman arguments yet again :rolleyes:
You're the one who started the argument, Art, not me. If that isn't what you meant, why are you disagreeing with me?

My point (again) was that you cannot shoot someone in the leg (for example) for the purpose of disabling them. Any shot taken is classified as "deadly force" because the potential exists to kill the person.

Your new claim is regarding this supposed new "shoot-to-kill" policy and you haven't provided one iota of evidence that it exists. Ie, that police can/must continue shooting until the target is dead (and not just no longer a threat). Such a policy wouldn't even make sense since it would require the officer to check the pulse of the person they shot, then fire again until there isn't any pulse.
 
Last edited:
  • #80
russ_watters
Mentor
19,028
5,187
Art said:
The reason there is currently a hot debate running on this subject in the UK is because the objective has shifted from incapacitating the target to killing him / her in the case of suspected suicide bombers. The new guidelines even have a name Operation Krakos.
Sorry Art, I simply won't take your word for it that such a thing exists. I need to see the evidence. Post a link.

A google search for "operation krakos" produces precisely zero hits.
 
  • #81
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
Since a single shot to the head is more than enough to kill a man, the fact that the police-officers shot 5 is ample proof that they were just trigger-happy boys with poor judgment.

That they also are liars, do not exonerate them.
Every single one of them, along with their superiors deserve jail-for-life.


These types of individuals are a disgrace for any police force.
 
  • #82
50
9
And if he had a bomb they would be hero's yet he didnt and they are a disgrace. Don't be soo naive.
 
  • #83
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
Andy said:
And if he had a bomb they would be hero's yet he didnt and they are a disgrace. Don't be soo naive.
He didn't have any bomb. Don't insinuate that he did have one. Don't be paranoid.
 
  • #84
Art
russ_watters said:
Sorry Art, I simply won't take your word for it that such a thing exists. I need to see the evidence. Post a link.

A google search for "operation krakos" produces precisely zero hits.
Dum
Roy Ramm, former Met Police specialist operations commander, said the rules for confronting potential suicide bombers had recently changed to "shoot to kill".

One terrorism expert said if the shooting was carried out by police - rather than special forces - it would represent a "pretty big departure" for the UK force.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4707781.stm de dum
UK police defend shoot-to-kill in hunt for bombers

LONDON (Reuters) - British police on Sunday defended a policy of shooting to kill suspected suicide bombers despite killing a Brazilian electrician by mistake in the hunt for attackers who tried to set off bombs in London. "I think we are quite comfortable that the policy is right, but of course these are fantastically difficult times," London police chief Ian Blair told Sky Television.

Asked if police instructions were to shoot to kill suspected suicide bombers, he said: "Correct. They have to be that."
http://www.metronews.ca/reuters_international.asp?id=85501 [Broken] de dum
"If you are dealing with someone who might be a suicide bomber, if they remain conscious, they could trigger plastic explosives or whatever device is on them," said London Mayor Ken Livingstone. "Therefore, overwhelmingly in these circumstances, it is going to be a shoot-to-kill policy."
de dum
Scotland Yard police headquarters refused to discuss operational tactics. But security experts said officers were operating under revised guidelines.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=968218&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 de dum
POLICE POLICY ON SHOOTING

Met Police chief Sir Ian Blair has warned that more innocent people could be shot by police while the four suspected suicide bombers remain on the run.

He remained defiant over the new "shoot-to-kill" policy and said his officers had to make terrifying, quick and life-threatening decisions.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,15410-13394645,00.html [Broken]

ad infintum.....................

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.

Edit: - Apologies for my mis-spelling; Smurf has kindly pointed out it is Operation Kratos
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #85
87
0
arildno said:
He didn't have any bomb
That wasn't known until it was too late.

And as this poll seems to be showing most people would have shot in that situation, despite the police in general being dubbed trigger-happy boys.

A fatal build-up circumstances on the part of the victim and their actions???
Police incompetence in planning and coommunication???

These are issues I believe.
 
  • #86
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
Delta said:
That wasn't known until it was too late.

And as this poll seems to be showing most people would have shot in that situation, despite the police in general being dubbed trigger-happy boys.

A fatal build-up circumstances on the part of the victim and their actions???
Police incompetence in planning and coommunication???

These are issues I believe.
There wasn't a single, valid piece of evidence that he ever had any, apart the fact that he was dark-skinned (which actually is invalid).

The so-called "reasons" given in the aftermath, are just a bunch of lies as to what actually happened.

These "officers" showed that at the actual shooting, they had lost all sort of control over their own emotions (that is why they shot 5 times, rather than a single, well-aimed shot).
It is no reason to suppose that they were in any better control of their emotions prior to their execution of an innocent.
 
Last edited:
  • #87
87
0
arildno said:
There wasn't a single, valid piece of evidence that he ever had any, apart the fact that he was dark-skinned (which actually is invalid).
He ran from armed police towards a train full of passengers having just left a building under surevliance in a jacket that didn't suit the weather conditions. Again evidence can only be sought after the event.

arildno said:
just a bunch of lies as to what actually happened.
Any sources???

arildno said:
that is why they shot 5 times, rather than a single, well-aimed shot.
I understand this is in the protocol to shoot five times as one shot is not always garaunteed to be on target to kill the brain.

I still find the actions of the officer justifiable, as shown in this poll, its events prior that should be questioned.
 
  • #88
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
Delta said:
He ran from armed police towards a train full of passengers having just left a building under surevliance in a jacket that didn't suit the weather conditions.
They were in civilian clothes. They say they identified themselves, but that is a complete and utter lie.

He was an innocent, remember that!. He didn't have any bomb on him; nor was he involved in any type of drug traffick; nor was he an illegal immigrant.
In fact, he was in a steady job as an electrician.

He would not have run from policemen who identified themselves in a proper manner towards him.


Hence, it follows that they did NOT identify themselves in a proper manner, but started chasing him as a gang of murderous thugs (which is actually what they were).
If they are saying they followed proper procedure, they are simply lying.
 
Last edited:
  • #89
50
9
They say they identified themselves, but that is a complete and utter lie
Where you at the crime scene?

He would not have run from policemen who identified themselves in a proper manner towards him.
So you knew de menzes very well then i gather?

but started chasing him as a gang of murderous thugs (which is actually what they were).
If they are saying they followed proper procedure, they are simply lying.
Anybody have any idea what the procedure was that they where following?
 
  • #90
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
By this, you have shown that you are utterly unable to:

a) Distinguish verified FACTS from STATEMENTS given by police officers.
I.e, the actual info on De Menzes has been verified, the statements of the policemen involved as to what happened has no independent verification

b) Gauge what is the most probable scenario based solely on FACTS.

Learn to think for yourself, rather than gobble up whatever statements figures of establishment choose to give you.
 
  • #91
310
2
Art said:
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
 
  • #92
50
9
Where are these facts that you keep talking about arildino? All i can see around here is speculation.
 
  • #93
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
Let us take this in detail:
PART 1
Delta said:
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?
 
  • #94
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
Andy said:
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?
 
  • #95
210
0
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 cant believe people are actually defending the actions of the police.. really amazes me...
 
  • #96
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
Still waiting for Andy's admission that I have posted lots of facts..
 
  • #97
87
0
arildno said:
He was an innocent, remember that!.
arildno said:
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.
 
  • #98
50
9
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 beleive that it is the only course of action that those officers could have taken at that time under those circumstances.
 
  • #99
57
0
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.
 
  • #100
50
9
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 wouldnt it.

Terrorists dont 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?
 

Related Threads for: London Shooting: What would you have do?

  • Last Post
4
Replies
79
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
791
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
6K
Top