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

[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.

 

[DM]

Alexandra

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?

You're right, I haven't read it in any credible source, but this is something in which I at least automatically assumed.

Alexandra

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.

It means that he failed to heed to police instructions, also notice that the killed innocent had inhabitated in London for the past 3 years. So in terms of communication, I gather he was able to speak the language.

Alexandra

The shooting gives this impression?

Are you implying the officers barbarically shooted the man without any motive? Is racism your view as to why this has happened?

Alexandra

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.

Given the circumstances in which the event unfolded, I cannot agree.

Alexandra

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.

To panic in such a way is, in my opinion, almost implausible. Surely, despite the absence of credible intelligence, the man had a serious motive or reason to run away. You claim he was scared, I have my doubts. I have yet to reach an opinion concerning his fugitive behaviour.

 

[alexandra]

An important clarification

It has just occurred to me that I have not made my position clear on one important issue: what it is that I consider to be barbaric. I am not calling the individual policeman/policemen (I'm not sure if only one policeman did the shooting) concerned barbaric - on the contrary, I empathise completely with the position this individual (these individuals) were in. What I consider to be barbaric is the 'shoot-to-kill' policy. I consider this barbaric because, until now, I have lived in a society in which people are considered innocent until proven (by legal institutions) guilty. I seem to be a bit 'behind the times' now, when things seem to have changed and guilt is assumed from the beginning. I guess they'll be changing the laws sometime soon to reflect this (or perhaps they already have - I suppose they have, in effect, if the policy being adopted is 'shoot-to-kill'). In any case, I don't blame the individuals concerned in this case; it could have happened to anyone put in that position.

 

[alexandra]

You're right, I haven't read it in any credible source, but this is something in which I at least automatically assumed.

Ok, DM - thanks for looking for the information, though. Perhaps we'll find out more details over time.

It means that he failed to heed to police instructions, also notice that the killed innocent had inhabitated in London for the past 3 years. So in terms of communication, I gather he was able to speak the language.

I guess he was able to speak the language, DM.

Are you implying the officers barbarically shooted the man without any motive? Is racism your view as to why this has happened?

Ah, no, I did not mean the officers were barbaric. Thanks for raising this so clearly - it's what made me realize how that statement I made could be misunderstood. I've clarified my position in the post just before this one. I meant the 'shoot-to-kill' policy is barbaric. Well, in my opinion it is barbaric - but obviously many people disagree with me. Never mind, it's just my opinion (I'm no great authority; I'm just stating what I think about these things).

To panic in such a way is, in my opinion, almost implausible. Surely, despite the absence of credible intelligence, the man had a serious motive or reason to run away. You claim he was scared, I have my doubts. I have yet to reach an opinion concerning his fugitive behaviour.

Sorry, DM, I continue to disagree with you about this. I would be terrified if I were in that situation. I have absolutely no doubts about that. And I would be even more terrified if I were living in a country where the language was my second language - say, for example, in France, or Germany. In moments of panic and terror, I imagine I may not cope with the second language. But anyway, it's no big deal - we can disagree about this. People will disagree in a discussion. As you can tell, this issue has really just gotten to me in a bad way. I can't help thinking about the waste - in the photos he looked like a really nice person. And he was totally innocent, and only 27 years old...

 

[DM]

Alexandra

But anyway, it's no big deal - we can disagree about this. People will disagree in a discussion.

Oh yes, absolutelly. In fact I don't like certain members who disagree and quarrel over a subject just so they culminate in being the right one. I'm not zealous in dogmatism, there's no point in being a bigot. I respect everyones opinions as long as they respect mine.

 

[Astronuc]

From what I heard from an eyewitness who saw the police shoot Jean Charles de Menezes and was interviewed by the BBC, de Menezes had fallen on the floor of the carriage. The police brought the gun up and shot de Menzes 5 times in the back of the head! 5 times!

If de Menzes was a bomber, he could have set the bomb off when he got on the carriage - but no, he didn't. He fell. That fact gives reasonable doubt that he was a bomber.

If this is the case, then the killing was unjustified!

 

[Evo]

According to this article the police did identify themselves. "When they drew their weapons and shouted “Stop, armed police”, the man looked over his shoulder and bolted. He was described as being very fit and agile."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1705147,00.html

"Another witness said that the suspect boarded the Tube and attempted to take a hostage before he was shot.

Dan Copeland, a Northern Line passenger, told BBC News: “The man burst in through the carriage door to my right and grabbed hold of the pole and a person by the glass partition near the door, diagonally opposite me."

also see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706787.stm

 

[Astronuc]

"Another witness said that the suspect boarded the Tube and attempted to take a hostage before he was shot."

Or having done nothing wrong, i.e. he is innocent (as the police now admit) and he is panicked because guys with guns are trying to kill him (quite possibly in his mind), he takes cover behind another person.

One who have never had a gun in one's face probably does not understand.

 

[Evo]

Or having done nothing wrong, i.e. he is innocent (as the police now admit) and he is panicked because guys with guns are trying to kill him (quite possibly in his mind), he takes cover behind another person.

One who have never had a gun in one's face probably does not understand.

I believe they are saying he's innocent of carrying a bomb, it appears that he had connections to a terrorist cell and had been followed as he left a house under surveilance. He was running from them because he was guilty of associating with suspected terrorists.

July 23, 2005

Suspect shot dead 'had no bomb'
By Adam Fresco, Rajeev Syal and Steve Bird

ARMED undercover police chased and shot dead a man directly linked to the London bombers’ terror cell after he ran into a South London Underground station and tried to board a train.

It is understood that he was found not to have been carrying a bomb.

Three officers had followed him to Stockwell station after he emerged from a nearby house that police believed to be connected with Thursday’s attempted bombings.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1705147,00.html

 

[Andy]

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

If the guys wherent cool headed they would have opened fire when he was running away and possibly killed other civilians.

Fact, 1 The police followed this guy from a house that was under surveillance because of suspected terrorist activity.

2, The armed officers shouted "Stop, armed police"

3, The guy ran away and jumped the ticket booth.

If they hadnt shot him and he had been carrying a bomb then there could have been many more deaths. To be honest i think those guys did their job and they did it well.

 

[Astronuc]

I believe they are saying he's innocent of carrying a bomb, it appears that he had connections to a terrorist cell and had been followed as he left a house under surveilance. He was running from them because he was guilty of associating with suspected terrorists.

I have heard that the house/building from which de Menezes exited was under surveillance. It is not clear now that de Menezes himself was considered a suspect.

He was described as 'Asian' in appearance - but he is Brazilian.

Although perhaps police in London assume anyone with dark skin . . .

I have a big problem with terms like 'judged', 'suspected', 'believed' - especially when deadly force is involved.

The Times UK does apparently claim the suspect has been directly linked to a terrorist cell. I'll reserve judgement pending confirmation.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Surely being a sniper, you have to be better at your job than anyone else. I mean, I'm a programmer. If I coded the wrong business rule, no-one's going to pat me on the shoulder amd say "you did the right thing under the circumstances". And people always complain about the weatherman getting it wrong. Surely killing the wrong person cannot be dismissed with a "... under the circumstances...". WHAT circumstances - like, not knowing who the guy was? Not knowing if he was a terrorist carrying a bomb or some Brazillian back-packer? Yeah, under those circumstances, leave the fugging safety on.

Although, Alexandra: it's a shoot-to-kill policy, not a shoot-on-sight policy. As far as I'm aware we haven't quite gone that way yet, but give it a couple of weeks.

 

[loseyourname]

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.

But you do have that right. It's not written into British law that you will be shot if you wear a heavy coat on the subway in the summertime. I would venture the guess that there is no systematic effort to stem such behavior, either. This just sounds like a rogue cop did something stupid. It only becomes a civil liberties issue if the government sanctions this kind of thing. From the looks of it, they're condemning it, officially reaffirming that yes, you do have the right to wear a heavy coat on the subway in the summertime.

 

[Joel]

This just sounds like a rogue cop did something stupid. It only becomes a civil liberties issue if the government sanctions this kind of thing.

After page 1 in this thread I thought this is the most important comment that has to be made, but alas, you where there first. I also think it of outmost importance to remember that the british government has not sanctioned this killing and we are yet to see what kind of actions this will lead to. I don't think Britain should be declared a police state yet.

 

[Art]

I believe they are saying he's innocent of carrying a bomb, it appears that he had connections to a terrorist cell and had been followed as he left a house under surveilance. He was running from them because he was guilty of associating with suspected terrorists.

July 23, 2005

Suspect shot dead 'had no bomb'
By Adam Fresco, Rajeev Syal and Steve Bird

ARMED undercover police chased and shot dead a man directly linked to the London bombers’ terror cell after he ran into a South London Underground station and tried to board a train.

It is understood that he was found not to have been carrying a bomb.

Three officers had followed him to Stockwell station after he emerged from a nearby house that police believed to be connected with Thursday’s attempted bombings.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1705147,00.html

BLAIR SORRY OVER SHOOTING

Britain's senior policeman has apologised to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian man shot dead at Stockwell Station. "This is a tragedy. The Metropolitan Police accepts full responsibility for this. To the family I can only express my deep regrets," Sir Ian Blair told Sunday with Adam Boulton on Sky News.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1190065,00.html It appears as the police now accept he was innocent of anything to do with terrorism perhaps some posters on this thread should also accept he was innocent.
This was a cock up by the police and needs investigating to find out how it was allowed to happen. One question I have is why was he allowed to leave the suspect house, walk to a bus stop, board a bus and enter an underground station before being challenged?? If he had been a suicide bomber this incompetence would have meant many lives would have been lost. By leaving it until he was inside the station to apprehend him the police themselves created the high pressure situation that led to them shooting an innocent man dead.

 

[BobG]

Although, Alexandra: it's a shoot-to-kill policy, not a shoot-on-sight policy. As far as I'm aware we haven't quite gone that way yet, but give it a couple of weeks.

Yes, it's a shoot-to-kill policy, not a shoot on sight policy.

THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Anti-terrorist police have a policy, codenamed Operation Kratos, for dealing with suspected suicide bombers. At its most extreme, it involves shooting at the head

Armed officers in England and Wales aim at the chest, but bombers hit in the chest can still trigger explosives

Once a person is judged a serious risk to the public armed police can open fire

They can only open fire while on duty when absolutely necessary and when traditional methods have tried and failed, or are unlikely to succeed

Police are expected to identify themselves as armed officers and warn of their intent to use firearms

They must give sufficient time for a suspect to observe the warning, unless that puts anyone at risk

I love the third and the last ground rule. How sure does the officer have to be before shooting? Is 50/50 equivalent to "serious risk" when the man is headed into a subway carrying maybe 50 people or more? Or does the officer just have to be more than 2% sure? Or does he have to be 100% sure even though that guarantees virtually all attacks will be successful?

Of course, the officer doesn't have time to come up with numbers like 5%, 50%, or 90%, which is the only reason ambiguous terms like "serious risk" and "puts anyone at risk" make any sense. He reacts the best he can, hopes he made the right decision, then analyzes the situation after the fact to figure out what he did right and what he did wrong.

 

[Evo]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1190065,00.html It appears as the police now accept he was innocent of anything to do with terrorism perhaps some posters on this thread should also accept he was innocent.

This says no such thing, his link with the suspected terrorists is being investigated, the "tragedy" and "mistake" was assuming that he was a bomber, or that he was one of the four that they were searching for. He's still under suspicion of being linked with the terrorists.

 

[Art]

This says no such thing, his link with the suspected terrorists is being investigated, the "tragedy" and "mistake" was assuming that he was a bomber, or that he was one of the four that they were searching for. He's still under suspicion of being linked with the terrorists.

You are wrong. In the interview which I watched in full on TV the police accept unreservedly he had no links whatsoever to terrorism.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke described the shooting of Mr Menezes as an "absolute tragedy".

Mr Menezes, who lived in Tulse Hill, was completely unconnected to Thursday's attempted bombings, Scotland Yard has confirmed.

The shooting is being investigated by Scotland Yard's Directorate of Professional Standards, and will be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4712061.stm

 

[Andy]

bollocks, the officers followed the guy from a house under investigation for terrorism, that would appear to be a link right there. I very much doubt the guys that did the shooting where actually police officers, more likely secret service or SAS and they where in constant radio contact with their superiors. The shoot for the head policy has been in place for the past 3 years ever since the british governement has been advised by the isreali governement that aiming for the body could set off any explosive device.

 

[Evo]

That could be my misunderstanding of exactly what they are saying. I read it to say that he wasn't tied to last Thursday's attempts, not that they have completely ruled out any connections to suspected terrorists. If when they complete the investigation it is discovered that he had no ties at all, it still doesn't mean it is anything more than one officer using bad judgement and/or panicking. Unfortunately this happens.

 

[Andy]

i read in one of the british newspapers that the officers had followed the guy from a terrorist house, he may have been unconnected to thursdays attempts but he was still followed from a house under surveilence for the suspicion of terrorism.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Yes, it's a shoot-to-kill policy, not a shoot on sight policy.

THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Anti-terrorist police have a policy, codenamed Operation Kratos, for dealing with suspected suicide bombers. At its most extreme, it involves shooting at the head

Armed officers in England and Wales aim at the chest, but bombers hit in the chest can still trigger explosives

Once a person is judged a serious risk to the public armed police can open fire

They can only open fire while on duty when absolutely necessary and when traditional methods have tried and failed, or are unlikely to succeed

Police are expected to identify themselves as armed officers and warn of their intent to use firearms

They must give sufficient time for a suspect to observe the warning, unless that puts anyone at risk

Is it just me or does this make no sense at all?

So the police identify themselves ... If they do this to a real bomber, won't he now just detonate as soon as the warning is yelled?

The only people they are going to get to 'shoot repeatedly in the head' ARE innocents who CAN'T detonate a bomb.

Shoot to kill will only stop a bomber if a warning is NOT yelled.

A real bomber is going to either detonate as soon as he hears the warning or comply and allow the police to approach and THEN detonate so he can kill the police who threaten him.

This is the biggest Catch-22 since the original was described to Yosarian himself.

The new approach to this is going to be to apply a 'deadman' switch... a switch that constantly must remain depressed by the bomber that, when released, detonates.

Shoot him in the head and he let's go.

 

[Art]

Just how many times do the British police have to say this man was innocent before others accept it? Seems like more of the usual 'never let facts stand in the way of a good theory'

A rainy, grey Sunday in south London but after police shot dead a man in an incident they are now calling a "tragedy", the atmosphere felt far from normal.

Maria Arbelaez said she now feels less secure in London

The streets of Stockwell are quiet, with a few people waiting for buses and others striding under umbrellas towards the Tube station.

At the station itself, where Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes was killed by police hunting Thursday's would-be bombers, the atmosphere was muted, a mixture of sadness and anger.

Scotland Yard has now said Mr Menezes, who lived in nearby Tulse Hill, was completely unconnected to the attacks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4712961.stm

Police admit 'tragic' error: the man we shot on the Tube was no terrorist By Andrew Alderson, Charlotte Edwardes and David Harrison
(Filed: 24/07/2005)

Scotland Yard was facing a severe crisis last night after it admitted that the man shot dead at Stockwell Tube station on Friday morning had no links to terrorist attacks on the capital.

The victim, a Brazilian, was shot five times in the head as he ran on to an Underground train pursued by armed officers, including members of SO19, Scotland Yard's specialist firearms unit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ml&sSheet=/portal/2005/07/24/ixportaltop.html

 

[Andy]

Thats assuming that the suicide bomber is smart and its pretty obvious they aint.

 

[Andy]

He's innocent of not carrying a bomb on him, but not innocent of terrorist activity. Did the officers know that at the time? nope. They had to do what they did just incase he was carrying a bomb and when all the evidence suggests he may have been carrying a bomb what else could they do?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Thats assuming that the suicide bomber is smart and its pretty obvious they aint.

Ummm ... How 'smart' do you have to be to run a deadman switch if the very trigger is that it goes off when you ARE shot in the head?

See, the thing is, that suicide bombers don't actually make the bombs.

I heard a description of how they found a Palestinian 'cache' of vests hung on a garment rack like you find in the garment district of NY. They knew how many vests were out there by the number of empty hangers there were on the rack.

 

[Art]

He's innocent of not carrying a bomb on him, but not innocent of terrorist activity. Did the officers know that at the time? nope. They had to do what they did just incase he was carrying a bomb and when all the evidence suggests he may have been carrying a bomb what else could they do?

Really, Have you read ANY of the links I provided? Do you think the police are lying when they say the man is innocent? If so would you share your 'reasoning' as to why they are lying, with the rest of us?

 

[Evo]

Just how many times do the British police have to say this man was innocent before others accept it? Seems like more of the usual 'never let facts stand in the way of a good theory'

Their reason to go after him was based on the belief that he was carrying a bomb and/or a suspect from last Thursday. All I have seen them apologize for is their mistake on that belief. They would not have been given the "go ahead" if he was just suspected of having ties, which I believe is still the case. We don't know at this point. The police went on the fact that he left a house connected to suspects and he acted suspiciously, and he fled when they identified themselves. Ok, he acted stupid, not a reason to be shot, but if you act stupid under these circumstances, you are likely to wind up shot. Did the officer have reason to shoot? I don't know, I wasn't there.

I had a police officer pull a loaded gun on me in my own house, I froze, I'm not stupid, or guilty, so I had no reason to not freeze. (they thought possibly someone had broken into my house, it was a mistake) I sure wouldn't be stupid enough to run from police in the subway after what happened a few days ago.

 

[Andy]

If they where that smart they would plant the bombs and then walk away before they detonate. And if they where even smarter they might try to negotiate to get the things they want.

And yes i have read your links and all they confirm is that he didnt have a bomb, what they don't say is that he was followed from a house directly linked with terrorism.

 

[Andy]

ditto to what evo said, i would have said that but she's smarter than me.

 

[Evo]

Is it just me or does this make no sense at all?

So the police identify themselves ... If they do this to a real bomber, won't he now just detonate as soon as the warning is yelled?

The only people they are going to get to 'shoot repeatedly in the head' ARE innocents who CAN'T detonate a bomb.

Shoot to kill will only stop a bomber if a warning is NOT yelled.

A real bomber is going to either detonate as soon as he hears the warning or comply and allow the police to approach and THEN detonate so he can kill the police who threaten him.

This is the biggest Catch-22 since the original was described to Yosarian himself.

The new approach to this is going to be to apply a 'deadman' switch... a switch that constantly must remain depressed by the bomber that, when released, detonates.

Shoot him in the head and he let's go.

I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with you.

 

[Art]

Their reason to go after him was based on the belief that he was carrying a bomb and/or a suspect from last Thursday. All I have seen them apologize for is their mistake on that belief. They would not have been given the "go ahead" if he was just suspected of having ties, which I believe is still the case. We don't know at this point. The police went on the fact that he left a house connected to suspects and he acted suspiciously, and he fled when they identified themselves. Ok, he acted stupid, not a reason to be shot, but if you act stupid under these circumstances, you are likely to wind up shot. Did the officer have reason to shoot? I don't know, I wasn't there.

I had a police officer pull a loaded gun on me in my own house, I froze, I'm not stupid, or guilty, so I had no reason to not freeze. (they thought possibly someone had broken into my house, it was a mistake) I sure wouldn't be stupid enough to run from police in the subway after what happened a few days ago.

Is there perhaps some subtle ambiguity in this statement that I am overlooking?

Police admit 'tragic' error: the man we shot on the Tube was no terrorist

If not can we stop with the "he probably deserved it anyway" type of argument and just accept as the police have that they made a tragic mistake and killed an innocent man.
As to the precise circumstances in which he was shot I have already posted my view of that which is that basically if the police did have serious suspicions about him they were incompetent for allowing him to a) board a bus and b) enter the underground station. Hopefully the investigation into the shooting will determine exactly what happened.

 

[Andy]

If the guy walked into a bakery they wouldn't have reacted the same way. Because he went direct from this house to a tube station gave them reason to try and aprehend him. When he ran away that gave them grounds to believe he may have been carrying a bomb.

 

[The Smoking Man]

ditto to what evo said, i would have said that but she's smarter than me.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050724/afp/050724161625top.html]He[/PLAIN] was one of hundreds of thousands of immigrants from around the world who have moved to London in recent years amid the capital's economic boom.

Menezes had emerged from "a block of flats" that was under surveillance in Tulse Hill, Blair revealed.

Armed police raided an address in Tulse Hill Saturday after days of surveillance. The Observer newspaper said Menezes may have left the same address on Friday.

You do understand that a 'block of flats' in American English does not translate to 'house' don't you? He left an 'Apartment Building'.

 

[Evo]

Is there perhaps some subtle ambiguity in this statement that I am overlooking? If not can we stop with the "he probably deserved it anyway" type of argument and just accept as the police have that they made a tragic mistake and killed an innocent man.
As to the precise circumstances in which he was shot I have already posted my view of that which is that basically if the police did have serious suspicions about him they were incompetent for allowing him to a) board a bus and b) enter the underground station. Hopefully the investigation into the shooting will determine exactly what happened.

I agree. The whole thing was botched in any scenario. It does not make sense to wait until he entered the subway to detain him. Unless they were under orders not to detain him unless he entered (I did read that right before he entered the officers were advised to get him and do whatever was necessary, which leads me to believe that this was botched at a higher level).

The police in the UK do not have a lot of experience carrying firearms, from what I understand. This was an automatic weapon. I have read no statement from either the officer or the police stating the circumstances leading to the shots fired. Could it have been panic? Could he have accidently pulled the trigger due to the struggle? It discharged 5 times, but if the officer was panicked and his finger was taught, it would easily discharge multiple times, correct? I have fired weapons at a firing range and it is very easy to fire a gun.

 

[The Smoking Man]

If the guy walked into a bakery they wouldn't have reacted the same way. Because he went direct from this house to a tube station gave them reason to try and aprehend him. When he ran away that gave them grounds to believe he may have been carrying a bomb.

So a person on his way to work leaving from 'an apartment building' and going directly to an underground station is ample proof for you.

Let this be a lesson to us all.

Stop for a coffee on the way if anyone ever gives Andy a gun.

Question: if he had made it into the station and onto a train ... presumably a real bomber's target ... and he still had not detonated, why did they assume he was still a bomber?

Are you familiar with the police in Brazil, by the way? Maybe this guy had been socialized into a different way of thinking about 'police'? Bolting to a place where there were witnesses may be a standard procedure where he comes from? You do note he did stop once he got there. You don't pump 5 bullets into a man's head while he is still moving full tilt.

 

[Andy]

Well i read in one of the newspapers that they guy left a house not a block of flats.

I think we aint going to hear exactly what went on with this, on thursday and friday from what i heard on the radio and read in various newspapers this guy was followed from a terrorist house into the tube station where they tried to aprehend him, what was said made him sound very guilty of some terrorist activity and i don't doubt that he had links with terrorist organisations.

As Evo said the police in the UK don't have much experience with firearms which is why i suspect that the guys that did the shooting where actually secret service or SAS personnel i very much doubt that an armed police officer in this country would have taken this action. The armed police would have been a visual ditterent (sp) outside the station.

 

[Evo]

You do understand that a 'block of flats' in American English does not translate to 'house' don't you? He left an 'Apartment Building'.

It is sounding more and more like they over reacted. I understand that they are in hightened alert due to the ongoing attacks. I can see them following him and then getting concerned about the things that were adding up. It was highly suspicious, the running was the clincher, he might as well have yelled out "I'm guilty" as far as the police were concerned. If he hadn't run he would be alive right now.

I'm still curious why I haven't read an official police statement on exactly what happened. Here in the US, a statement would have been made. What exactly did the officer that fired the shots say? Has that been released?

 

[Art]

I agree. The whole thing was botched in any scenario. It does not make sense to wait until he entered the subway to detain him. Unless they were under orders not to detain him unless he entered (I did read that right before he entered the officers were advised to get him and do whatever was necessary, which leads me to believe that this was botched at a higher level).

The police in the UK do not have a lot of experience carrying firearms, from what I understand. This was an automatic weapon. I have read no statement from either the officer or the police stating the circumstances leading to the shots fired. Could it have been panic? Could he have accidently pulled the trigger due to the struggle? It discharged 5 times, but if the officer was panicked and his finger was taught, it would easily discharge multiple times, correct? I have fired weapons at a firing range and it is very easy to fire a gun.

Yes, the British police do not normally carry guns and for those that do there is serious cause to wonder just what standard of training they have been given as this is by no means an isolated incident. There have been many instances of the police in Britain shooting innocent, unarmed people. Not because they are bad or evil I hasten to add but because they are incompetent which comes down to the selection procedures whereby these individuals are chosen to be allowed to carry guns and the training they receive with regard to their use.

 

[Andy]

The tube station was just as busy at the entrance as it was in the train itself. What i was saying was that the guy was followed from a suspected terrorist house directly to the tube station.

Put yourself in the officer's position.

1, You have a house/apartement under surveilance for terrorist activity.
2, You see someone wearing a large overcoat (on a very hot day) leaving the house/apartement.
3, He walks directly to a tube station
4, When told to "STOP ARMED POLICE" he turns see's the officers and then runs away towards the train jumping a barrier.

What would you do in that situation? Answer that question honestly considering the lifes off everyone on and around that train and tell me if you would have done anything different.

 

[Evo]

Well i read in one of the newspapers that they guy left a house not a block of flats.

I also read that it was a house. TSM's post says it's a block of flats.

TSM, walking directly to a tube station (the place of the attacks) after leaving a place under surveilance, wearing a heavy coat in the dead of summer, then running from police - equals trouble any way you look at it. It all adds up to no good. I can't blame the police for thinking the worst in this scenario. I think they should have stopped him sooner, but I think they were waiting on an ok from above.

edit: wow, Andy and I are psychically linked.