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

[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).

 

[Pengwuino]

Vanesch... the US found out the consequences for not changing our actions in response to previous attacks and threats on 9/11.

 

[alexandra]

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?

Pengwuino, the police were not wearing uniforms, so how would he know they were police? (By the way, I will repeat this statement whenever you say that 'he ran from police' and ignore that I have already pointed out that they were not in uniform - we could really push up the count for this thread by just arguing that point). Even if he knew, as one_raven points out "running from police" is not an offence people should get summarily shot dead for - there are many reasons a person may run, and not for anyone of them would this person have gotten the death penalty in the UK (does the UK have the death penalty? I hope I'm not mistaken on this - but no doubt someone will let me know if I am).

The fact remains that this marks a new phase in the life of UK citizens (and is probably a precursor for what will happen in other member states of the 'coalition of the willing'): ordinary and totally innocent people are now in danger of getting shot dead, on the spot, without trial, on the mere whim of a suspicion that some individual policeman has that they are somehow connected to some organisation or other. If that's ok with you, then ok - that's your point of view; I totally disagree with it, but you are entitled to have this opinion and to express it. This sort of society is, however, not ok with me. To repeat a quotation I posted in another thread... the quotation is by Benjamin Franklin (who, I believe, was one of the US' respected founding fathers - so his words perhaps count for something? Well, according to this link he was one of the founding fathers: http://www.foundingfathers.info/):They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

If most people in the UK and in the US and in Australia agree with your point of view, then the populations of those countries won't mind the risk of being shot dead on suspicion. I personally find it very worrying. As I wrote before in this thread, I have this crazy preoccupation with the notion of 'justice' - sorry, I just can't help it. I must have read too many fairytales in my youth.

 

[alexandra]

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?

No, Pengwuino; I would have immobilised him (as the policeman did), but then not shot him. I would have taken him in for questioning. That's what I would have done. Does that sound pathetic and weak to you? Should we just shoot people who look suspect because they are wearing coats or running in public places?

 

[DM]

alexandra

No, Pengwuino; I would have immobilised him (as the policeman did), but then not shot him. I would have taken him in for questioning. That's what I would have done. Does that sound pathetic and weak to you? Should we just shoot people who look suspect because they are wearing coats or running in public places?

You're neglecting the facts. You state that you would've "immobilised him" on the assumption that he was not a terrorist. Let us assume now that he was a terrorist, do you truly think he could've been immobilised like you say?

Point 1. If the police ever shot him whilst he was running away, the terrorist would most definitely detonate the bomb.

Point 2. The fact of the suspect wearing a coat in this searing heat is highly unusual, more unusual was to seem him vault the gate. You cannot argue "should we just shoot people who look suspect because they are wearing coats or running in public places?" because the officers warned him, he failed to heed to police instructions.

 

[BobG]

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.

This cuts to the directly to the problem. Rationally, an act of terrorism yesterday doesn't suddenly make terrorism today more likely.

Of course, expecting our reaction to terrorism to be different than our reactions in any other situation would be incredibly optimistic. No matter what type of situation you're talking about, the chances of a given incident are perceived to have increased once the incident has actually occurred. A piece of foam damages the tile on the shuttle? Shut down the program for two and a half years until a solution for this problem can be developed because this is suddenly the most serious problem affecting shuttle safety. Less prolific examples exist throughout businesses and organizations. Organizations set up detailed processes based on a careful risk analysis of the chance of various likely and unlikely events - then toss them all out the window as soon as an unlikely event occurs - if an unlikely event occurs, it must be time for a complete overhaul of every procedure an organization has ever designed.

This is just human nature, no matter how irrational it may be (humans are irrational beings to a large degree). It's also why terrorism is such a serious threat. A suicide bombing in itself makes the affected people feel less secure. The inevitable human over-reaction, both of the populace and the authorities, makes the targeted people feel even more powerless and vulnerable. An attack on London subways affects more than 50+ that died in the attacks - it winds up affecting every single resident of London.

 

[alexandra]

DM, to my statement

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...

you responded:

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

Ok, but I have a couple of questions about this:

1. Please provide me with a URL to where it is stated that the officers pursuing the young man shouted who they were - is this what they shouted, in any case? Or did they just shout 'Stop!'. Would YOU stop if people with guns were chasing you? I have asked Pengwuino for a link so I can read what you say about this warning myself - I have done searches and cannot find any statement by the police to this effect. I don't just take what people say on trust - so that's why I am asking you to show me where you got your information.

2. What do you (or anyone else) think "unable to comply" means? Why was he "unable to comply"? Was it because he did not know English very well? It is just a really oddly-worded statement. Perhaps if I read the whole news report (if that is where you got your information) the context will give me a clue as to the meaning of this statement.


To Pengwuino's statement:

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...

you write

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.

Here is my question: the shooting gives this impression? Here is what the eye-witness said:

"I didn't see any guns or anything like that - I didn't see him carrying anything. I didn't even see a bag to be quite honest." Reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm

So he wasn't holding anything. According to this part of the eye-witness' statement

"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."
Reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm

the man was running; he tripped; he was shot. You don't run with your hands in your pockets. Did you read anywhere that he had his hands in his pockets? I’d appreciate it if you share your source of information.

To Pengwuino’s statement:

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

you responded with

Precisely why this isn’t barbarism.

I disagree – it is barbaric, in my opinion, because from what I know about ‘civilised’ societies, one does not get shot for wearing a coat. As others have already pointed out, it is not unusual for people to wear coats in hot weather. He could have been wearing it for any number of reasons. In any case, whatever the reason – in a civilised society one does not get shot dead on the grounds of what one is wearing – in a barbaric society, anything goes.

And finally, to my statement

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?

you responded with

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

Why ‘implausible’? It is completely plausible, in my opinion, that an ordinary civilian would panic when approached by a group of armed men. And we have not yet established whether or not he was instructed to stop, or whether or not he heard/understood the instruction, or whether he knew they were policemen.

 

[alexandra]

alexandra


You're neglecting the facts. You state that you would've "immobilised him" on the assumption that he was not a terrorist. Let us assume now that he was a terrorist, do you truly think he could've been immobilised like you say?

Point 1. If the police ever shot him whilst he was running away, the terrorist would most definitely detonate the bomb.

Point 2. The fact of the suspect wearing a coat in this searing heat is highly unusual, more unusual was to seem him vault the gate. You cannot argue "should we just shoot people who look suspect because they are wearing coats or running in public places?" because the officers warned him, he failed to heed to police instructions.

DM, please just read the eye-witness account:

"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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm

The policeman had already immobilised him.

Please tell me where I can read about his vaulting the gate. I haven't read any account about that yet.

 

[BobG]

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.

It's certainly a pressure packed job! The police department had better do a perfect job in training their personnel because the police on the street have to react perfectly the first time they're confronted with a decision that could involve the lives of dozens of people - and then improve from there! Those that don't react perfectly the first time should be replaced by someone else, so we can have a different police officer face that kind of decision for the first time in their lives.

I'm not being entirely facetious. Police protection is one job where a community had better invest the money to at least provide a probable chance the police will react correctly the first time and every time. There should also be an effort to hold onto the people that have faced that kind of decision before, since regardless of what their reaction was, they hopefully have learned something about how to handle to that kind of decision.

 

[kat]

Interesting article in the BBC today:So sorry, but our policy will be staying the same!

*snip*

He said the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was a "tragedy", but admitted more people could be shot as police hunt suspected suicide bombers.

and further into the article *snip*

He acknowledged that "somebody else could be shot" as the hunt continued, but added "everything is done to make it right".

But he said the "shoot to kill" policy for dealing with suspected suicide bombers would remain in force.

"There is no point in shooting at someone's chest because that is where the bomb is likely to be," he said.

"There is no point in shooting anywhere else if they fall down and detonate it."

Heh.

 

[Hurkyl]

I am virtually certain that if it was clear the policeman simply shot a fully-restrained man out of anger or whatever, that Pengwuino would condemn the act just too.

The point that he's trying to make is that some of you seem all too willing to leap to the conclusion that that's precisely what happened.

To him, (and to me, as well) it seems highly unusual that the policemen would fully restrain a suspect, and then shoot him. This gives sufficient reason to suspect that there is more to the story than what's ben told.