News The Ultimate Loss of Civil Liberties: Innocent Man Shot Dead in UK

[alexandra]

Hello all

I've just read today's BBC main news story:

Family condemns police shooting The family of a Brazilian man shot dead by police hunting the men behind London's attempted bomb attacks have told of their anger and disbelief.
Jean Charles de Menezes's grandmother said there "was no reason to think he was a terrorist".

Police expressed "regret" over the killing of the 27-year-old electrician at Stockwell Tube station on Friday, admitting it was a "tragedy".

More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711639.stm

This is barbarism.

 

[one_raven]

As I posted on another forum...

They claim that deadly force is necessary when dealing with suicide bombers because it is the only way to stop them. After all, they could very well have a detonator in their pocket.

I fully admit that I can see both sides of the story.
Hand1.) Incapacitation (at least instant unconsciousness) is required to stop a suicide bomber. Shoot him in the kneecaps, and he will simply press the trigger and kill everyone in a 30 foot radius.

TheOtherHand.) Unless he says, "I am a suicide bomber and you are all going to die" or something similar, then you have just given an undertsandably nervous police force the power of judge, jury and executioner in the heat of the moment. This case in particular, clearly illustrates the inherent danger in that. "He looks suspicious. Let's kill him!"


Aside from all that, in this case TheOtherHand doesn't even matter or come into play. They had the man pinned down and immobile. He was already unable to move. Deadly force was not justifiable by any strecth of the imagination.

 

[alexandra]

Aside from all that, in this case TheOtherHand doesn't even matter or come into play. They had the man pinned down and immobile. He was already unable to move. Deadly force was not justifiable by any strecth of the imagination.

Yes, precisely - and another factor that needs mentioning is people are going to argue 'But he ran away!'. I've thought about that one: the police weren't wearing uniforms! He probably ran away because he didn't know they were police - I mean, I think (if I didn't 'freeze' with terror), if a group of armed men ran at me, shouting (or whatever), I would probably try to run away too. Whew, this is just so bad...

 

[Pengwuino]

Aside from all that, in this case TheOtherHand doesn't even matter or come into play. They had the man pinned down and immobile. He was already unable to move. Deadly force was not justifiable by any strecth of the imagination.

This is the part that confuses the hell out of me. They pin him down and THEN shoot? The ONLY thing i can think of is if he reached for something that looked like a detonator and they thought he had to be stopped... that's teh ONLY reason i can concieve of. This isn't barbarism and this shouldn't be a call for protests and all this sorts of crap because there is a lot here that still makes no sense and we're all jumping to conclusions that seem way too far fetched to be probable. If this turns out to be as insane as it sounds... then we can all gasp in horror and make threads saying civil liberties are over and other such rhetoric.

And as someone pointed out in another thread, why was he wearing a winter coat in the middle of summer? And, to add to this, he ran away from people identifying themselves as police (not stated in article, was from a earlier press release, AP i believe) in a place highly likely to be targeted as a terrorist target only days after 2 series of attacks. I want to see what made them fire and why did he run and what was with his clothing...

 

[alexandra]

This is the part that confuses the hell out of me. They pin him down and THEN shoot? The ONLY thing i can think of is if he reached for something that looked like a detonator and they thought he had to be stopped... that's teh ONLY reason i can concieve of. This isn't barbarism and this shouldn't be a call for protests and all this sorts of crap because there is a lot here that still makes no sense and we're all jumping to conclusions that seem way too far fetched to be probable. If this turns out to be as insane as it sounds... then we can all gasp in horror and make threads saying civil liberties are over and other such rhetoric.

And as someone pointed out in another thread, why was he wearing a winter coat in the middle of summer?

My source is BBC news. I also heard an official government/police/security representative apologising on the radio. It is officially confirmed by official sources that cannot be questioned that the man shot had nothing to do with terrorism at all.

 

[Pengwuino]

My source is BBC news. I also heard an official government/police/security representative apologising on the radio. It is officially confirmed by official sources that cannot be questioned that the man shot had nothing to do with terrorism at all.

Thats not the question here. Its why he ran and why did he have on such a huge coat. Sure its nice and all to say after the fact that he wasnt a suspect, but it still doesn't account for why he ran and the other odd parts of this case.

 

[alexandra]

Thats not the question here. Its why he ran and why did he have on such a huge coat. Sure its nice and all to say after the fact that he wasnt a suspect, but it still doesn't account for why he ran and the other odd parts of this case.

He ran because the police were not wearing uniforms; as far as he was concerned, they were a bunch of armed men threatening him with guns. What would YOU do if a bunch of armed men threatened you with a gun?

 

[Pengwuino]

Other sources say they announced they were police, ill have to verify that point.

Ewww ok that is true and furthermore...

According to witnesses, Jean Charles de Menezes was wearing a heavy, padded coat when plainclothes police chased him in an underground car, pinned him to the ground and shot him five times in the head and torso.

Well, turns out that was because the officer had an automatic pistol... never knew anyone carried those kinds of pistols.

 

[Pengwuino]

They have cameras everywhere... i wonder if they got this on camera. And wait, what does this have to do with civil liberties?

 

[alexandra]

Other sources say they announced they were police, ill have to verify that point.

Pengwuino, just imagine that this was either you or one of your friends; how would you feel about it then? If you can honestly say, "It would be ok if I/my friend were accidentally shot because I would deserve it: I wore a coat/ran away from some men chasing me with guns", then... well, I guess... I'm speechless. If some innocent person I know (or even the innocent person I don't know) gets shot by plain clothes police, I can't in good conscience say, "That's ok", not under any circumstances. I guess I have a really weird view of justice, huh?

Anyway, here's some more information. An eye-witness account:

I saw Tube man shot - eyewitness

A passenger has told how he saw armed police officers shoot a man dead on a Tube train at Stockwell.
Mark Whitby said: "I was sitting on the train... I heard a load of noise, people saying, 'Get out, get down'.

"I saw an Asian guy. He ran on to the train, he was hotly pursued by three plain clothes officers, one of them was wielding a black handgun.

"He half tripped... they pushed him to the floor and basically unloaded five shots into him," he told BBC News 24.

"As [the suspect] got onto the train I looked at his face, he looked sort of left and right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox.

"He looked absolutely petrified and then he sort of tripped, but they were hotly pursuing him, [they] couldn't have been any more than two or three feet behind him at this time and he half tripped and was half pushed to the floor and the policeman nearest to me had the black automatic pistol in his left hand.

"He held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him.

This is from the BBC website again, and there's more (also about the coat): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm

I've also tried to establish whether or not the plain clothes police alerted him to who they were, but the only information I could find was ambiguous - it suggests that he wasn't warned, but doesn't really say one way or the other (I've bolded the most relevant bit for easy identification):

Concern has also been expressed by the present commissioner and his immediate predecessor that the legal position regarding use of police firearms needs to be urgently reviewed in the light of the suicide threat.

The police deployment of firearms is governed by a manual published by the Association of Police Officers, last revised in February 2005.

It is not true to say that police officers must identify themselves or shout a warning when confronting a suspect believed to pose a grave and imminent threat.

The manual says that that procedure "should be considered" but recognises that the key aim of an operation is to "identify, locate, contain and neutralise" the threat posed.

Reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4708373.stm

 

[one_raven]

They have cameras everywhere... i wonder if they got this on camera. And wait, what does this have to do with civil liberties?

I should have the right to wear a "thick padded coat" and enter a subway that is open for public access without being shot by the police.

I'm sure people will try and obfuscate the issue by bringing up the coat and by asking why he ran, but that is not the issue at hand.

It doesn't matter in the least why he was wearing a thick coat.
Is it illegal to wear a coat whenit is warm outside?
Is it a threat to National Security?

He could have run for any number of reasons.
Maybe he didn't hear that they were police- maybe he was wearing a walkman, maybe he doesn't (or didn't) speak English well, maybe he simply panicked.
To be honest, I don't know what I would do if I was in the subway, sortly after it got bombed and a band of plainclothed men were running after me with weapons drawn shouting at me. I just may run.

He is an electrician, maybe he was working in a cold computer room.

Maybe he stole the coat, and was afraid to get arrested.
Perhaps the police were FULLY justified in wrestling him to the ground.
It really does not matter.

All that matters is:
Was he subdued and immobile before the cop shot him five times and killed him?

 

[alexandra]

They have cameras everywhere... i wonder if they got this on camera. And wait, what does this have to do with civil liberties?

Pengwuino, all I can think of is that you didn't really think before posting your question. In any case, this is what this has to do with civil liberties: surely as civilians we have the right to life? Is the right to life itself not the most basic of all civil liberties? Maybe I'm just going crazy here, being idealistic or something... I don't know. Perhaps a neocon can set me right. No rights to life any more in this brave new world of ours? Not even if you did nothing at all wrong, nothing to threaten anyone, or even anyone's profit?

 

[stoned]

and who said British are coolheaded/composed in difficult times ?

 

[alexandra]

Other sources say they announced they were police, ill have to verify that point.

Ewww ok that is true and furthermore...

Pengwuino, I've searched for anywhere where it states that the police announced who they were but can't find it. Please provide me with your link.

Nevertheless, even if they did announce who they were, as one_raven points out he may not have heard them. I can easily imagine myself not hearing what a bunch of threatening-looking people running at me are saying/shouting - I'd be panicking far too much to be able to hear anything, I think.

 

[Pengwuino]

Pengwuino, all I can think of is that you didn't really think before posting your question. In any case, this is what this has to do with civil liberties: surely as civilians we have the right to life? Is the right to life itself not the most basic of all civil liberties? Maybe I'm just going crazy here, being idealistic or something... I don't know. Perhaps a neocon can set me right. No rights to life any more in this brave new world of ours? Not even if you did nothing at all wrong, nothing to threaten anyone, or even anyone's profit?

Well you have obviously shown you don't think before you post. The guy has a big coat and starts running when the poliec confront him days after a series of terrorist attacks in the same type of location he is at and some of them were suicided bombers. Then of course, he had just walked out of a house that was under surveillance. If none of those actions raise any red flags in your mind then i surely do hope your not incharge of any sort of security.

What exactly would you have done in the situation? Let him board the train? Just let him go and hope you are right? Travel into the future to find out he wasnt connected and then come back to make the decision?

 

[Pengwuino]

Nevertheless, even if they did announce who they were, as one_raven points out he may not have heard them. I can easily imagine myself not hearing what a bunch of threatening-looking people running at me are saying/shouting - I'd be panicking far too much to be able to hear anything, I think.

There have been countless incidents where innocent people have been approached by police with guns drawn and they didnt run away out of some insane fear. Stop assuming about what happened.

I'll try to find out where this guy got hte info as to whether or not the police announced who they were

 

[alexandra]

There have been countless incidents where innocent people have been approached by police with guns drawn and they didnt run away out of some insane fear. Stop assuming about what happened.

I'll try to find out where this guy got hte info as to whether or not the police announced who they were

I am not assuming. Everything I've posted is backed up with evidence. I did not post anything at all about this incident when it first happened (the day it was reported that the young man was shot) because there was nothing to post then. Now there is something important to discuss, because it has implications for all of us. One day you could be going about your ordinary business in the UK and suddenly get chased and shot (in a matter of seconds, before you've even realized what's happening). I find this very worrying and totally unacceptable on any grounds, and I would like to find out what other people think about this. I now know your own opinion about it, but perhaps others agree with me that this is bad news.

 

[Pengwuino]

I should have the right to wear a "thick padded coat" and enter a subway that is open for public access without being shot by the police.

Thats like saying i have the right to confront police officers with a mock-mp5 bb gun and not to be shot at.

I'm sure people will try and obfuscate the issue by bringing up the coat and by asking why he ran, but that is not the issue at hand.

It doesn't matter in the least why he was wearing a thick coat.
Is it illegal to wear a coat whenit is warm outside?
Is it a threat to National Security?

No it does matter, your just trying to say anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong and showing how you will refuse any evidence contrary to your view in life.

He could have run for any number of reasons.
Maybe he didn't hear that they were police- maybe he was wearing a walkman, maybe he doesn't (or didn't) speak English well, maybe he simply panicked.
To be honest, I don't know what I would do if I was in the subway, sortly after it got bombed and a band of plainclothed men were running after me with weapons drawn shouting at me. I just may run.

Wearing a walkman and just spontaneously decided to run? And yes, he does speak english according to most sources. If he paniced, oh well, as they say "stuff happens". He picked the wrong place to panic. This shouldn't be means for calling the police trigger happy barbarians. Its like a jet/prop plane flying near restricted DC air space and then saying "Oh well, he saw the fighters, he must have paniced and turned right towards the white house... fighters shot him down, the fighters are monsters, i guess we don't have the right to fly anymore"

He is an electrician, maybe he was working in a cold computer room.

He had just left a house under surveillance and was being followed by British police i believe.

All that matters is:
Was he subdued and immobile before the cop shot him five times and killed him?

No that's not all that matters. Your trying to narrow down the situation into a black and white situation where you can blame the police without bringing in every implication related to the case. He just made some really bad mistakes that weren't really his fault and the circumstances combined to get him killed. Unfortunate accident? Yes. Barbarism? No.

 

[one_raven]

What exactly would you have done in the situation? Let him board the train? Just let him go and hope you are right? Travel into the future to find out he wasnt connected and then come back to make the decision?

It's not about what I or any other private citizen, would have done- it's about what the police SHOULD have done.
If, as the eyewitness accounts state the police were on top of him, they should have grabbed his arms, pulled them behind his back and kept him immobilized until the situation was under control.
If the do not have that level of cool-headedness that does not necessarily make them "evil" it does, however, make them unsuitable for the job they have and should be discharged.
IF, as I said, the eyewitness accounts were correct, which we have no reason to doubt at the moment.

I'll try to find out where this guy got hte info as to whether or not the police announced who they were

Again, it doesn't really matter if they announced themselves.
He MAY not have heard it.
Even if he did, resisting arrest is NOT a capital offense.
If he was breaking the law in some way (maybe he had an outstanding bench warrant) he would have run. That is NOT justification for shooting him on the spot.

in the same type of location
Are you ****ting me?
Simply being in a subway is justification for being killed?
Thousands upon thousands of other people were on the subways that day, I am sure. They were open to the public.

 

[Pengwuino]

I am not assuming. Everything I've posted is backed up with evidence. I did not post anything at all about this incident when it first happened (the day it was reported that the young man was shot) because there was nothing to post then. Now there is something important to discuss, because it has implications for all of us. One day you could be going about your ordinary business in the UK and suddenly get chased and shot (in a matter of seconds, before you've even realized what's happening). I find this very worrying and totally unacceptable on any grounds, and I would like to find out what other people think about this. I now know your own opinion about it, but perhaps others agree with me that this is bad news.

You assumed he didnt heard. Anyhow, you are being horribly unrealistic and ignorant to think that its unacceptable that one day, you may not just be shot runnen down a subway. I may be screwing around and filming amovie where i have a fake gun up to a fellow actors head and a police officer might come by, see me, and open fire. Tragic accident? Yes. Unacceptable? No. You see, i understand that everyoen is not perfect nor omnipotent and when it is perceived that one more multiple peoples lives may be in danger, i can truly understand when certain actions may be taken.

And isn't it always possible that the police paniced? Is it not right to give the police the same leeway when it comes to panicing as you give the man who was killed?

 

[Pengwuino]

It's not about what I or any other private citizen, would have done- it's about what the police SHOULD have done.
If, as the eyewitness accounts state the police were on top of him, they should have grabbed his arms, pulled them behind his back and kept him immobilized until the situation was under control.
If the do not have that level of cool-headedness that does not necessarily make them "evil" it does, however, make them unsuitable for the job they have and should be discharged.
IF, as I said, the eyewitness accounts were correct, which we have no reason to doubt at the moment.

Well according to eye witnesses, it doesn't make sense. To us, it doesn't make sense. SOMETHING must have happened to make them fire. Do the witnesses say they knew exactly what happened? No. Were there a lot of panic stricken people? Yes. Shoudl we jump to conclusions? No.

Again, it doesn't really matter if they announced themselves.
He MAY not have heard it.
Even if he did, resisting arrest is NOT a capital offense.
If he was breaking the law in some way (maybe he had an outstanding bench warrant) he would have run. That is NOT justification for shooting him on the spot.

Your isolating the incident, which shows that you are not arguing this correctly. You must take into account that 10 or so bombs were detonated in the last few days. If you dont, your simply biased and unwilling to see the situation for what it truly as.

in the same type of location
Are you ****ting me?
Simply being in a subway is justification for being killed?
Thousands upon thousands of other people were on the subways that day, I am sure. They were open to the public.

Isolating the incident again. Refer to how i explain why isolating is simply a means to prove your argument right instead of looking at the actual situation.

 

[sid_galt]

If terrorism really has to be wiped out, such kind of casualties are inevitable.

 

[one_raven]

Thats like saying i have the right to confront police officers with a mock-mp5 bb gun and not to be shot at.

It is absolutly NOTHING AT ALL like saying that by any stretch of the imagination.
Confronting a police officer with a mock-up gun would possible be comparable to wearing a fake bomb and holding a rigger in your hand, but is is not even comparable to wearing a garment that is heavier that you would expect on a warm day!

No it does matter, your just trying to say anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong and showing how you will refuse any evidence contrary to your view in life.

Please don't assume to know what my thoughts and motivations are.
You can't read my mind, and you couldn't be further from the truth.
Refrain from personal attacks and stick to the discussion please, or don't waste my time.

Wearing a walkman and just spontaneously decided to run? And yes, he does speak english according to most sources. If he paniced, oh well, as they say "stuff happens". He picked the wrong place to panic. This shouldn't be means for calling the police trigger happy barbarians.

I didn't call them "trigger happy barbarians" and wouldn't.

Its like a jet/prop plane flying near restricted DC air space and then saying "Oh well, he saw the fighters, he must have paniced and turned right towards the white house... fighters shot him down, the fighters are monsters, i guess we don't have the right to fly anymore"

It is nothing at all like that because you are not supposed to fly there.
There was NO restriction against using that subway.

He had just left a house under surveillance and was being followed by British police i believe.

Which is why I said they were fully justified in wrestling him to the ground and detaining him.
He wasn't suspected of anything specific at all.
Simply coming from that house (many electricians spend a great deal of their time in stranger's houses) was his only transgression.
While that is plenty reason to suspect and even detain and question him, it is NOT reason to "shoot to kill".

No that's not all that matters. Your trying to narrow down the situation into a black and white situation where you can blame the police without bringing in every implication related to the case. He just made some really bad mistakes that weren't really his fault and the circumstances combined to get him killed. Unfortunate accident? Yes. Barbarism? No.

Again, I didn;t call it barbarism, and please do not presume to know my intentions or character- you don't know me.

 

[one_raven]

I may be screwing around and filming amovie where i have a fake gun up to a fellow actors head and a police officer might come by, see me, and open fire.

Do you know why you never hear about this happening?
Because police do not generally shoot to kill based on nothing more than geralized suspicion.

Again, I did not say the police were evil or terrible or any such thing.
I DO think, however, this is an unacceptable error in judgement.
If action is not taken (no, not jail time or any such thing, but perhaps taking these officers off the terrorism squad and not placing them in such situations) then it is complicit accpetance of the policy and thus deemed as acceptable behavior to shoot on suspicion.
Due process goes out the window.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Your isolating the incident, which shows that you are not arguing this correctly. You must take into account that 10 or so bombs were detonated in the last few days. If you dont, your simply biased and unwilling to see the situation for what it truly as.

Penguino:

So you're saying police should behave differently and more suspiciously in the days following a terror attack? As if the possibility of anyone person being a terrorist is significantly different?

I agree with you that this might have been an accident caused by people on both sides panicking, the kind that could not have been avoided. But I don't buy that "the situation", the days following a terror attack, warrants different police behavior than other days. The probability that an arbitrary person in a subway is a terrorist is no different from day to day (unless you have prior knowledge of a planned attack, in which case it goes up from 1 in 10^6 to maybe 2 or 3 in 10^6). If the police want to change their policies to prevent terrorism, then they should change policies over a long-term period of time, with the goal of actually preventing something. Short-term reactions are not due to rational policy, but irrational fear; people get into a "panicky" state of mind that does not make the public safer. In fact, it actively endangers the public, as we've tragically witnessed.

 

[Pengwuino]

It is absolutly NOTHING AT ALL like saying that by any stretch of the imagination.
Confronting a police officer with a mock-up gun would possible be comparable to wearing a fake bomb and holding a rigger in your hand, but is is not even comparable to wearing a garment that is heavier that you would expect on a warm day!

Isolating the incident. He was walking away from a suspect house wearing a big ol coat on a warm day into a subway station days after 10 bombs went off in subway stations and other mass transport stations and then runs from the police. If this doesn't raise any sort of suspicions in your mind... then wow.

It is nothing at all like that because you are not supposed to fly there.
There was NO restriction against using that subway.

You are not suppose to run from police. Boom, you have now done something wrong and as far as any decent person is concerned, you are now a danger to the public. The unfortunte circumstances are that the police think you have a bomb strapped to you and will respond in kind.

Which is why I said they were fully justified in wrestling him to the ground and detaining him.
He wasn't suspected of anything specific at all.
Simply coming from that house (many electricians spend a great deal of their time in stranger's houses) was his only transgression.
While that is plenty reason to suspect and even detain and question him, it is NOT reason to "shoot to kill".

Im sure they would have LOVED to detain him. The unfortunate thing is that HE RAN. The only thing that would have gone through your head and probably theirs is "Oh my god he's going to try to set off his bomb". If he had layed down, hands out, and let the police arrest him, then good for him; he should get the benefit of the doubt, be brought in, and see if there's any evidence to keep him in police custody. UNFORTUNATELY, he ran and at that point, you can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt. What we don't know is what caused the police to shoot. He may have very well have pulled something out of his pocket. At that point, with everything the police officer knew, the only logical thing to do would be to shoot. If this guy DID have a bomb on him and everything took place exactly like it did, no one would be saying a thing. They would have seen the situation and applauded that the officer took the information into account and did the right thing. If he decided to give everyone the benefit of the doubt after running away, people would have died and people would have asked "With all that information, why didnt he shoot?".

Again, I didn;t call it barbarism, and please do not presume to know my intentions or character- you don't know me.

Please cool it with the 'victim' attitude. You are attempting to have a debate so keep the emotion out of it.

 

[stoned]

good thing is that those police idiots are contained on that small island.we don't need them in europe and their socio/economical miracle.

 

[Pengwuino]

Do you know why you never hear about this happening?
Because police do not generally shoot to kill based on nothing more than geralized suspicion.

Happened 3 times in my city alone last year. Kid or young adult has a bb gun, points it at the cops, they fire. Inevitably everyone realizes that if your a cop and someone points what looks like a gun at you, you are fully justified in discharging your weapon.

Again, I did not say the police were evil or terrible or any such thing.
I DO think, however, this is an unacceptable error in judgement.
If action is not taken (no, not jail time or any such thing, but perhaps taking these officers off the terrorism squad and not placing them in such situations) then it is complicit accpetance of the policy and thus deemed as acceptable behavior to shoot on suspicion.
Due process goes out the window.

Again, isolating the situation. What your failing to even try to comprehend is that for all intensive purposes, the city and specifically its mass transit networks, is under attack by suicide bombers. I would feel quite happy that the police are deciding to use instincts instead of asking questions after bombs go off.

 

[rachmaninoff]

If he decided to give everyone the benefit of the doubt after running away, people would have died and people would have asked "With all that information, why didnt he shoot?"

Because people run from police all the time, some are criminals, the vast majority aren't suicide bombers. By your logic, hundreds of people should be shot every day out of mere suspicion.

 

[DM]

Alexandra

Yes, precisely - and another factor that needs mentioning is people are going to argue 'But he ran away!'. I've thought about that one: the police weren't wearing uniforms! He probably ran away because he didn't know they were police - I mean, I think (if I didn't 'freeze' with terror), if a group of armed men ran at me, shouting (or whatever), I would probably try to run away too. Whew, this is just so bad...

The police have stated the man was unable to comply with police instructions. Surely the officers pursuing the gentleman shouted over and over.

Pengwuino

This is the part that confuses the hell out of me. They pin him down and THEN shoot? The ONLY thing i can think of is if he reached for something that looked like a detonator and they thought he had to be stopped...

I have to agree. The shooting gives the impression that the gentleman was either holding an object with similar attributes to a detonator or his hands were simply tucked inside his pockets.

Pengwuino

And as someone pointed out in another thread, why was he wearing a winter coat in the middle of summer?

Precisely why this isn’t barbarism.

Alexandra

He ran because the police were not wearing uniforms; as far as he was concerned, they were a bunch of armed men threatening him with guns. What would YOU do if a bunch of armed men threatened you with a gun?

Implausible. The killed innocent was stipulated to stop and informed that he was being instructed by Metropolitan officers.

 

[Pengwuino]

Penguino:

So you're saying police should behave differently and more suspiciously in the days following a terror attack? As if the possibility of anyone person being a terrorist is significantly different?

I agree with you that this might have been an accident caused by people on both sides panicking, the kind that could not have been avoided. But I don't buy that "the situation", the days following a terror attack, warrants different police behavior than other days. The probability that an arbitrary person in a subway is a terrorist is no different from day to day (unless you have prior knowledge of a planned attack, in which case it goes up from 1 in 10^6 to maybe 2 or 3 in 10^6). If the police want to change their policies to prevent terrorism, then they should change policies over a long-term period of time, with the goal of actually preventing something. Short-term reactions are not due to rational policy, but irrational fear; people get into a "panicky" state of mind that does not make the public safer. In fact, it actively endangers the public, as we've tragically witnessed.

Are you being serious? Are you basically saying that, for example, the US navy should have gone back to its regular normal routine after Pearl Harbor? That we shouldn't have done anything after 9/11 except sit around and say "oh well, that sucked, let's do everything that we do just like we always have".

I am utterly amazed at some people. Its as if we are suppose to expect police to have omnipotence and that the law of independant trials is suppose to apply here.

 

[Pengwuino]

Because people run from police all the time, some are criminals, the vast majority aren't suicide bombers. By your logic, hundreds of people should be shot every day out of mere suspicion.

If those hundreds of people walk out of suspect buildings days with abnormal clothing and then RUN from the police. Please do not try to isolate the situation to make your argument correct.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Again, isolating the situation. What your failing to even try to comprehend is that for all intensive purposes, the city and specifically its mass transit networks, is under attack by suicide bombers. I would feel quite happy that the police are deciding to use instincts instead of asking questions after bombs go off.

The city is not "under attack", it "had been attacked". There's a huge difference.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think we all need to admit that there is a BIG GAP in what we know about this situation. There is one moment in time where the people who cry out "barbarians!" are simply ignoring and I am trying to show that we have no idea what happened there and we can't pass judgement without knowing exactly what happened.

 

[Pengwuino]

The city is not "under attack", it "had been attacked". There's a huge difference.

Multiple bombings, multiple days, that's 'under attack' in most peoples books. If there happened to be a day in WW2 where nothing really happened, i don't think anyone would have said "oh well, i guess the wars over!".

 

[rachmaninoff]

If those hundreds of people walk out of suspect buildings days with abnormal clothing and then RUN from the police. Please do not try to isolate the situation to make your argument correct.

Hundreds of people walk out of buildings currently under surveillance, have poor fashion, and run from police when confronted. Where do they get all the material for TV shows like Cops? And you're the one who's isolating the situation, not me. I'm saying this should have been not different from many similar situations, in which lethal force was not used without clear and present danger.

 

[Pengwuino]

Hundreds of people walk out of buildings currently under surveillance

Ok when people, in this case, say "under surveillance", they mean that police suspect that criminal activities are occurring in that building and that people entering or leaving that building have a high probability of being criminals or accessories to criminal activities. This especially fits the situation as it was simply a house.

have poor fashion, and run from police when confronted. Where do they get all the material for TV shows like Cops?

Well for one, every single time someone runs on those shows, they have drugs on them or are criminals. I don't even know how that helps your case. Your trying to isolate this down to "he has poor taste in clothing" when in fact, what real people look at is the fact that you have a possible suicide bomber wearing clothes fully capable of hiding a bomb... not "eww he has bad taste".

And you're the one who's isolating the situation, not me. I'm saying this should have been not different from many similar situations, in which lethal force was not used without clear and present danger.

There was clear and present danger, there's very few things that could have made it any clearer. 10 bombs in the last few days, someoen leaving a suspect house wearing very suspicious clothing, going into a mass-transit station, and then running from the police. Since the absolutely most likely situation is that he has a bomb on him compared to a pistol or a knife, the correct reaction is to shoot if his hands even get close to getting out of sight of the officer. Its a simple push of a button or a wire crossing and that's it, game over.

 

[MaxS]

They have cameras everywhere... i wonder if they got this on camera. And wait, what does this have to do with civil liberties?

Think for yourself a little bit you'll figure it out.

(Just in case you still don't get it though - a guy got killed for wearing a padded coat)

 

[Pengwuino]

(Just in case you still don't get it though - a guy got killed for wearing a padded coat)

Simplistic view unworthy of a response

 

[rachmaninoff]

Are you being serious? Are you basically saying that, for example, the US navy should have gone back to its regular normal routine after Pearl Harbor? That we shouldn't have done anything after 9/11 except sit around and say "oh well, that sucked, let's do everything that we do just like we always have".

No, I'm not saying that, and I hope you're mature enough to understand the difference between a war perpetrated by sovereign nations, with armies of hundreds of thousands, and senseless violence perpetrated by four individuals, none of whom are still alive. It was generally known that a London was a target for terrorism, years ago; hence London was "under attack" by your definition before 7/7 as much as after it. In fact, no one's certain that there are any capable terrorists in London at the moment - it's the possibility (not even probability) of it that we' are worried about.

 

[Pengwuino]

No, I'm not saying that, and I hope you're mature enough to understand the difference between a war perpetrated by sovereign nations, with armies of hundreds of thousands, and senseless violence perpetrated by four individuals, none of whom are still alive. It was generally known that a London was a target for terrorism, years ago; hence London was "under attack" by your definition before 7/7 as much as after it. In fact, no one's certain that there are any capable terrorists in London at the moment - it's the possibility (not even probability) of it that we' are worried about.

Well ill excuse your childish insults as you still don't understand what is going on. there were multiple attacks on multiple days carried out by a large, multi-national terrorist organization that has made it a point to attack mass transit systems and makes it clear that this won't be an isolated incident.

 

[rachmaninoff]

There was clear and present danger, there's very few things that could have made it any clearer. 10 bombs in the last few days, someoen leaving a suspect house wearing very suspicious clothing, going into a mass-transit station, and then running from the police. Since the absolutely most likely situation is that he has a bomb on him compared to a pistol or a knife...

Absolutely not the most probable situation - and in fact he had none of these. On the other hand, the 7/7 terrorist on the bus had an ordinary-looking backpack. The terrorists we've seen so far go out of their way to look unsuspicious - for obvious reasons. Some disavow their religion and don't go to mosques, and pretend to be secular, just to avoid suspicion.

 

[Pengwuino]

Absolutely not the most probable situation - and in fact he had none of these. On the other hand, the 7/7 terrorist on the bus had an ordinary-looking backpack. The terrorists we've seen so far go out of their way to look unsuspicious - for obvious reasons. Some disavow their religion and don't go to mosques, and pretend to be secular, just to avoid suspicion.

Your using hindsight. The only thing being argued here is what the police knew. It is without doubt, highly probable that he had a bomb compared to anything else. And wait a second, why are you saying we have to look at how everyone else acted right after you told me that we don't need to look at how other people act because they are unrelated?

As if the possibility of anyone person being a terrorist is significantly different?

 

[Astronuc]

This is the part that confuses the hell out of me. They pin him down and THEN shoot? The ONLY thing i can think of is if he reached for something that looked like a detonator and they thought he had to be stopped... that's teh ONLY reason i can concieve of. This isn't barbarism and this shouldn't be a call for protests and all this sorts of crap because there is a lot here that still makes no sense and we're all jumping to conclusions that seem way too far fetched to be probable. If this turns out to be as insane as it sounds... then we can all gasp in horror and make threads saying civil liberties are over and other such rhetoric.

And as someone pointed out in another thread, why was he wearing a winter coat in the middle of summer? And, to add to this, he ran away from people identifying themselves as police (not stated in article, was from a earlier press release, AP i believe) in a place highly likely to be targeted as a terrorist target only days after 2 series of attacks. I want to see what made them fire and why did he run and what was with his clothing...

I see young men in the neighborhood (small town just north of NYC, US) wearing coats or sweaters (and even hoods) in the middle of the summer - when the temperatures are 80-90°F (27-30°C). To me this is odd, but apparently it's not uncommon in the 'hood'. Now, in some areas, that would raise 'suspicion'. Do police then have the probable cause to detain such individuals, and should the individuals, if they travel outside of the 'hood' expect to be detained by the police.

The man in question was apprently subdued - i.e. no threat - then shot 5 times in the back! That to me qualifies as an unjustified homicide.

Should this guy have been sensitive to the 'bombings' and the fact that his attire might have appeared suspicious? If one answers affirmative, then I would ask - why?

Some of the police were undercover, so perhaps the man panicked.

There was a similar situation in NY City. Amadou Diallo, a Guinean living in New York City, was killed under controversial circumstances by four white police officers in the New York City Police Department's Street Crime Unit. He was killed in a door way of an apartment building - he had no where to run when 4 plain clothes police officers jumped out of a car and accosted him. His only crime - looking like a criminal suspect.

 

[one_raven]

Isolating the incident. He was walking away from a suspect house wearing a big ol coat on a warm day into a subway station days after 10 bombs went off in subway stations and other mass transport stations and then runs from the police. If this doesn't raise any sort of suspicions in your mind... then wow.

Of course it does.
I didn't say it doesn't.
Raising suspicion, and warranting this specific act are two vastly different things.

You are not suppose to run from police.

As you said yourself, and I agree, we do not have all the facts.
Thusly, you have NO IDEA why he ran.
If he did not hear them (as I said) and simply saw a band of armed men running at him, I would expect him to run.
Also, he could have been doing SOMETHING wrong, that doesn't mean he should have been killed.
I think we agree more than you are willing or able to see.
I agree that this was an unfortunate accident, and likely was (at least partially) caused by panick on both ends of the situation. I don't think the police were evil barbarians as a reult. I think that, IF the eyewitness accounts are correct (which we are yet to find out) then the officers involved showed a lack of restraint and coll-headedness, thus should not be placed into situations in which it can happen again.
The police depatment should also take a closer look at their "shoot to kill" policy.

Boom, you have now done something wrong and as far as any decent person is concerned, you are now a danger to the public.

Running from a band of armed men does not mean you are a danger to the public in my book.
Even if he DID know they were police, I don't see that as a danger to the public.

The unfortunte circumstances are that the police think you have a bomb strapped to you and will respond in kind.

They should not "respond in kind" they are trained professionals and should respond with reason.

Please cool it with the 'victim' attitude. You are attempting to have a debate so keep the emotion out of it.

Exactly.
This is a debate about this incident.
Personal attacks and calling into question a person's character has no place in it whatsoever.
I am not being emotional at all.
I am debating the facts, not engaging in personal attacks or calling your character or motivations into question.
I suggest you take your own advice and leave your emotional reactions and presumptions at the door.

Happened 3 times in my city alone last year. Kid or young adult has a bb gun, points it at the cops, they fire. Inevitably everyone realizes that if your a cop and someone points what looks like a gun at you, you are fully justified in discharging your weapon.

Go back and read this again please.
I agree that pointing a fake gun at a police officer is grounds for him shooting in self-defense.
Your scenario you painted was you shooting a movie and aiming a gun at your friend and getting shot by a police officer as a result.
How often does THAT happen?

I would feel quite happy that the police are deciding to use instincts instead of asking questions after bombs go off.

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

[Pengwuino]

Ok am i the only person here seeing the significance of the fact that HE RAN FROM POLICE? and that he left a suspect house? It seems like everyone is absolutely stuck on this stupid coat as the only reason the actions were taken. Do externalities somehow not apply here?

 

[rachmaninoff]

(edited for misread)

And wait a second, why are you saying we have to look at how everyone else acted right after you told me that we don't need to look at how other people act because they are unrelated?

I'm afraid I don't understand what this sentence means, can you be specific?

 

[Pengwuino]

As you said yourself, and I agree, we do not have all the facts.
Thusly, you have NO IDEA why he ran.
If he did not hear them (as I said) and simply saw a band of armed men running at him, I would expect him to run.
Also, he could have been doing SOMETHING wrong, that doesn't mean he should have been killed.
I think we agree more than you are willing or able to see.
I agree that this was an unfortunate accident, and likely was (at least partially) caused by panick on both ends of the situation. I don't think the police were evil barbarians as a reult. I think that, IF the eyewitness accounts are correct (which we are yet to find out) then the officers involved showed a lack of restraint and coll-headedness, thus should not be placed into situations in which it can happen again.
The police depatment should also take a closer look at their "shoot to kill" policy.

Well all I am saying is that there's very much a possibility that the police were fully justified in their actions. The rest of the information to prove either one of us right is soon to come.

Running from a band of armed men does not mean you are a danger to the public in my book.
Even if he DID know they were police, I don't see that as a danger to the public.

But if your the cop (which is what we're talking about here), what are you thinking? Suspect running from police, possibly has a bomb on him, left suspect house... every clue points to "hey this guy has a bomb on him". Its just unfortunate that in teh end, he didn't.

They should not "respond in kind" they are trained professionals and should respond with reason.

What they did quite possibly was within reason depending on what we find out the guy did those last few seconds. The act of detonating a bomb is very easy, very quick, and you don't "miss" with a bomb. If a man pull a gun, you can always grab that gun or he can fire and miss. Reason dictates that you insue in a struggle. WIth a bomb, its way too quick of an action to dictate much of a struggle along with the fact that you can't force that bomb to work incorrectly (equivalent to making the guy shoot at a wall instead of people).

Exactly.
This is a debate about this incident.
Personal attacks and calling into question a person's character has no place in it whatsoever.
I am not being emotional at all.
I am debating the facts, not engaging in personal attacks or calling your character or motivations into question.
I suggest you take your own advice and leave your emotional reactions and presumptions at the door.

Im sorry but you are responding with emotion and pulling this victim routine as if any attack has been perpetrated towards you when in fact, none was.

Go back and read this again please.
I agree that pointing a fake gun at a police officer is grounds for him shooting in self-defense.
Your scenario you painted was you shooting a movie and aiming a gun at your friend and getting shot by a police officer as a result.
How often does THAT happen?

Im not sure but I am sure its happened before. What the real problem here is that the police used deadly force to save an innocent life and were justified in it, whether it be to save their own or save the friends life (even though in hindsight, the gun was fake... but of course, the question we're trying to address is if the police are to blame).

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

Agreed, how bout breakfast?

 

[Pengwuino]

(edited for misread)

I'm afraid I don't understand what this sentence means, can you be specific?

Ok you said that it was improbable that the guy had a bomb on him compared to anything else because every other bomber didnt act like him. Before that, a few posts earlier however, you said you should not be comparing people when it comes to addressing specific suspects.

 

[vanesch]

Are you being serious? Are you basically saying that, for example, the US navy should have gone back to its regular normal routine after Pearl Harbor? That we shouldn't have done anything after 9/11 except sit around and say "oh well, that sucked, let's do everything that we do just like we always have".

I think that that would have been the wisest response, pissing of most of the terrorists. Terrorists WANT to induce changing behaviour (usually they want to induce aggressive behaviour, mistakes, etc...) as a result of their actions. The worst that can happen to them is that you don't care.

Concerning the shot man in the UK, I don't think that the police was being "barbarian", but they must have been extremely nervous and this induced mistakes - exactly the kind of situation the terrorists are hoping for.

After all, objectively, these terrorist attacks are MINOR killings, as compared to other killings we all socially accept, the most notably being car accidents.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't put everything to work (intelligence etc...) to try to capture them, but you shouldn't change one iota to "usual behaviour". Such attitude makes terrorists totally powerless (even not completely harmless).