NationStates Jolt Archive

He wouldn't have known the house was under surveillance, and he didn't have a rucksack.

Speculation on the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4707781.stm) that is was not police who did the shooting but "special forces".

I just noticed this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4708373.stm).

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.

Does anyone have a reference where it says police identified themselves?

Does anyone have a reference where it says police identified themselves?

"Police warned the man, who ran on to the station platform. Witnesses said the officers opened fire as he jumped on to a train."

This from the revised version of the bbc report that started off the thread: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

Unclear whether a warning includes identifying yourself.

Grampus you should run the police department . After the people you are supposed to protect are all dead maybe you can get a job in an asylum .

The fact that you would expect a police officer to diddle around with a possible human bomb is amazingly FUCKIN IDIOTIC .

Now that the man has been shown to be innocent has your opinion changed any?

Well, they're going to answer questions so long as the people have them, particularly under a parliamentary system, I imagine. But there all sorts of scenerios we might ponder and share. But one of the things that's difficult to forsee is how the threat he poses geometrically increases when he becomes afraid, when he refuses to comply with lawful orders from a police officer, with the distance he puts between himselves and the police, and as the distence between him and members of the public at large decreases.

I don't think anyone can describe the event as anything other than an uncontrolled failure. The ends of law enforcement were certainly not achived. (In large part because the person who died, did a poor job of looking after their own self-interests.) And all failures should be examined. But that's much different from assigning blame. This one gets filed under, "Shit happens because people are stupid."

Fair points. As for Colodia's points - for a moment I thought he was making serious points - whereas he is just a school kid who self admitedly has trouble reading (proably ADHD) looking for a fight (probably conduct disorder too).

[QUOTE=Beer and Guns]If this is true ;

"Leaves a house under surveillance" (wrong - it was a block of flats)
"in connection with the terrorist bombings on London Transport two weeks ago" (wrong it was the incident 2 days ago)
"is carrying a rucksack" (wrong he was not)
"like the bombers in the terrorist bombings on London Transport two weeks ago" (wrong - he was not)
"Runs from armed police. Makes straight for a Tube station."
(wrong - he ran once in the station)
"Leaps over ticket barriers. Makes straight for platform level.
Leaps onto a Tube train" (finally you got something right)
"Then he commited suicide by cop" (wrong - at least according the the police commissioner)

"Its tragic he had to die for his stupidity" Who is it that is stupid?

"A greater tradgedy if the police hesitate at the next instance like this one" (wrong again - but what should we expect from a guy called "beer and guns." Go back to drinking beer, watching Dirty Harry, and playing with your plastic replica 44 magnum).

Why was he wearing a thick coat in July?! Ya know, if, say, I was working in a bank and saw a coupla guy in trench coats (in summer) walking in, I'd put my finger on the alarm button and then just wait for them to pull out shotguns or rifles. Similarly, when a guy wears a thick coat in July AND runs from police AND (let's not forget) looks (in terms of ethnicity, sex and age) just like the people engaged in Islamic terrorism, that's really suspicious (or rather downright scary if you happen to be close to him).

Now that the man has been shown to be innocent has your opinion changed any?

Innocent of the London bombings, not innocent of all terrorist activity. Read the New Scotland Yard report more carefully.

We still don't know whether he could understand English, and besides, seeing a group of people in plain clothes waving guns around is going to make anybody run.

He spoke English:

"He spoke English very well, and had permission to study and work there," Menezes' cousin Maria Alves told the O Globo Online Web site from her home in Sao Paulo. Menezes was originally from the city of Gonzaga in the southeastern state of Minas Gerais.

Innocent of the London bombings, not innocent of all terrorist activity. Read the New Scotland Yard report more carefully.

This report or a different one?: "Scotland Yard said Mr Menezes, who lived in Brixton, south London, was completely unconnected to the bomb attacks and added: "For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets.""

Why was he wearing a thick coat in July?!

Idle speculation: possibly he is used to a warmer climate being from a generally hotter place than London?

This report or a different one?: "Scotland Yard said Mr Menezes, who lived in Brixton, south London, was completely unconnected to the bomb attacks and added: "For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets.""

That one, yes.

But remember:

"This is a very fast-moving inquiry and things are literally changing by the hour," a senior Scotland Yard official said on Saturday night. "We are trying to give accurate information as fast as possible to the public, but we have to be cautious about what we say until the facts are established."

That one, yes.

But remember:

Indeed, but the police seemed to surprisingly quickly make a statement saying that he wasn't connected to the bombings, and it appears that his only connection may have been living in the same block of flats as an actual suspect.

Of course, any random member of the public could actually be guilty of a great many things, but I would suspect that the speed with which this statement has been forthcoming tells us quite a bit.

cui bono? What motive would the police have for issuing such a statement if they did actually believe that he was involved in terrorist activities?

Why was he wearing a thick coat in July?! Ya know, if, say, I was working in a bank and saw a coupla guy in trench coats (in summer) walking in, I'd put my finger on the alarm button and then just wait for them to pull out shotguns or rifles. new advice for Brazlieans Traveling North...

Never-Ever wear your Coat in July.

I believe the Metropolitian Police were perfectly correct to act in the way they did. Perhaps people should think about the following facts:

1) Two weeks prior to the incident, terrorists bombed the London transportation networks, especially the tube network. Only a day before, a similar attack was narrowly averted simply because a bomb failed to explode. In this atmosphere, it is unlikely that the police force would take chances with any suspicious characters.

2) The suspect failed to respond to the challenge of armed police. It wasn't just "a few" armed police: the BBC at the scene said that 20+ armed policemen were involved in the chase. If a person fails to respond to an armed command to stop, then I would call that highly suspect.

3) The man's clothing was suspicious. Although this is no grounds to shot him on, it only adds to the rest of the evidence as the police saw it.

4) Even though he was on the floor. he still could have blown himself up. The police could not have known he was not wearing a bomb. The evidence at the scene pointed to the fact that he was a bomber - he had come out of a house that was under anti terror surveillance, he ran from armed police officers ordering him to stop and he was dressed in suspicious clothing. Therefore the police would have been acting as if he were a bomber.

5) Current police policy on suicide bombers is to aim to kill if they refuse to respond to the orders of officers. Thus, it was only standard police policy being carried out.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can so easily condemn those involved without taking into account the stresses and uncertain factors that would have been present at the time of the accident. Imagine, for a moment, what it must have been like to be that officer:

You have chased a man of Asiatic appearance through the London tube station. London is on its highest security level, following actual bombings and failed bombings throughout the last two weeks. The suspect has failed to stop, despite armed requests by numerous police officers. He knows he is being chased. He has come from a house under observation. He is wearing clothing that is unusual for the sticky heat of the London summer and could easily be concealing a bomb under it. He trips and falls. You are full of adrenaline, the station is packed with people and panic. All on-the-spot evidence points to this man being a bomber. He could detonate himself any second, killing you and a hundred innocents in the process. Police policy gives you clear guidance on this matter: shoot to kill if they resist.

I know what I would do without the aid of hindsight. I would have shot the man.

People have already started clammering on about a violent police state but justice is already at work. Any deaths incurred by armed policemen must investigated by a Commission and one is already underway. If the officer is found to have acted improperly, he will meet the full force of the law. These Commissions have found against police officers in the past: only recently there was the case about the officers who killed a man carrying a table leg: they believed it was a shotgun. Those officers are now being tried for murder/manslaughter (cant remember which). These are not the hall marks of tyranny - these are the hallmarks of a society who takes incidents involving police firearms very seriously indeed and will not cease until the truth is found and justice dispensed.

There will be the usual bleeding heart liberals who, with their usual air of moral superiority, believe they are better men than the officer and will thus condemn him for acting in a human manner. But perhaps they should remember that if the suspect had been a bomber, that officer would have saved many lives through his actions.

I know what I would do without the aid of hindsight. I would have shot the man.Agreed. Given the situation as it is now understood it was the ONLY logical course of action.

And here's a great detailed report, that is also the most up-to-date (but not the whole article, obviously, since it is way, way, way too long!):

It was not only the CCTV footage and the new forensic evidence, however, that had given Scotland Yard the breakthroughs that they needed: documents, believed to be found in one of the abandoned rucksacks from Thursday's bombings, led detectives to an address in Scotia Road, Stockwell, south London. Soon after 9.30pm on Friday morning, undercover officers watched as a terrorist suspect left the address where he was staying, walked down the street and caught a bus to Stockwell station. As officers began to trail him, they clung to the hope that the man, unaware he was under surveillance, would lead them to one or more of the bombers.

The man was followed at a distance, by a team of at least 10 armed officers, including some from SO19, the specialist firearms squad. The officers had become concerned that their target was carrying a bomb not in a rucksack or holdall - he was carrying neither - but beneath the bulky, dark jacket he was wearing despite the warm weather.

The undercover team hoped against hope that the man would not decide to go into a Tube station. If he did, they would be forced to challenge him in case he was on a fresh suicide mission. Imagine the public outcry, senior officers reasoned, if it were discovered later that a suspected suicide bomber had been allowed to board a crowded rush-hour Tube train and detonate a bomb without any attempt to stop him being made by a vast team of armed officers.

Back in Stockwell, as the rush hour was nearing an end on Friday morning, members of the undercover police team tracking their terrorist suspect had their worst fears realised. Instead of leading officers to one or more of the would-be suicide bombers, the man, of Asian appearance and in his 20s, walked into Stockwell Tube station and went to buy a ticket. At about 10am, a senior officer gave the order for his armed men to challenge the suspect.

Instead of giving himself up, the man panicked, vaulted the ticket barrier and sprinted down the escalator to a platform where a train was already waiting with its carriage doors open. Several armed officers were in pursuit and, according to witnesses, the suspect stumbled as he tried to get into one of the carriages. By the time, he half-ran, half-fell on to the train, three officers, at least one of them holding a low-velocity pistol, pounced on him, shooting him five times in the head.

Mark Whitby, 47, an engineer, was sitting reading his newspaper when the suspect staggered into the carriage. "I heard someone shouting, 'Get down. Get down. Get down.' As he got into the train, he looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox - absolutely petrified. He half-tripped and was half-pushed to the floor."

It emerged on Friday that armed Scotland Yard officers have been given new "shoot to kill" guidelines - although they prefer to use the less emotive terms "shoot to stop" or "shoot to protect". The guidelines instruct officers tackling suspected suicide terrorists to shoot at the target's head, not at his chest. This is based on the experience of Israeli security officers who, having dealt with numerous Palestinian suicide bombers, say that shooting at the chest can detonate a bomb and can give a suspect more time to set off his device. Indeed, Israeli experts recommend that the marksman should ideally put five bullets into the would-be bomber's head to prevent any chance of him triggering the device.

Sir Ian justified Friday morning's shooting by saying that the man had been "challenged and refused to obey police instructions". The Independent Police Commission, which inquires into all fatal police shootings, will begin an investigation into the Stockwell Tube death.

Last night, however, Scotland Yard was facing a public relations disaster after senior officers admitted that the victim of the Stockwell Tube shooting was no longer a suspected terrorist. Instead, he was an innocent man, believed to be Brazilian, who had been living in a "multi-occupancy address" which appears to have been shared with genuine terrorist suspects.

Sir Ian, who succeeded Sir John Stevens as Metropolitan Police Commissioner in February, was pondering last night how to deal with the biggest crisis of his career.

By the end of Friday, Scotland Yard had carried out armed raids on at least four other addresses: two at a house in Stockwell and at two addresses in north-west London. Each property was searched first by bomb-disposal robots and then by explosives and forensic experts.

At the address in Portnall Road, Maida Vale, officers fired six CS gas canisters into a house from a building across the street. However, there were no arrests. There were similar scenes outside a flat close to an internet café in Harrow Road, Maida Vale, where three women, believed to be Somalian, were ordered on to the ground amid fears that their shopping bags contained explosives.

Senior police sources say that the most significant raids, however, were in Stockwell, where armed officers surrounded a block of flats as local youngsters played football nearby.

It is thought that one arrested man is a Muslim from Ethiopia and that he helps run a local restaurant. His wife is believed to work in Shepherd's Bush. Both were taken away, along with one of their two children.

Initially, senior police sources were convinced that they had arrested one of the suspected bombers but yesterday other officials at Scotland Yard were urging caution. Both men arrested in Stockwell on Friday afternoon and evening were being questioned at the high-security Paddington Green police station yesterday..

Senior Scotland Yard officers are convinced that there are links between the July 7 and the July 21 attacks. To start with, both targeted three Tube trains and a bus in north, south, west and east London. This apparently formed the shape of a "burning cross". After the July 7 attacks, the Secret Organisation of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe said on its website: "Britain is burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern and western quarters."

2) The suspect failed to respond to the challenge of armed police. It wasn't just "a few" armed police: the BBC at the scene said that 20+ armed policemen were involved in the chase. If a person fails to respond to an armed command to stop, then I would call that highly suspect.


It remains unclear whether the police did actually identify themselves as such, and it appears that the fatal encounter was with either plain clothes policemen or another unit in mufti.

It may also be the case that the man did not know that those who shot him were armed until it was too late. Certainly, to state the glaringly obvious, plain clothes men do not carry guns in the open.

If the police did not identify themselves then the possibility is opened that the man believed himself to actually be facing a new form of terrorist attack on the underground.

Having said that, I certainly hope that the police did identify themselves as such before taking action.

It remains unclear whether the police did actually identify themselves as such, and it appears that the fatal encounter was with either plain clothes policemen or another unit in mufti.

It may also be the case that the man did not know that those who shot him were armed until it was too late. Certainly, to state the glaringly obvious, plain clothes men do not carry guns in the open.

If the police did not identify themselves then the possibility is opened that the man believed himself to actually be facing a new form of terrorist attack on the underground.

Having said that, I certainly hope that the police did identify themselves as such before taking action.

There's not a single news story that says that the police did not identify themselfs.

One part of my quoted news story said:

At about 10am, a senior officer gave the order for his armed men to challenge the suspect.

Instead of giving himself up, the man panicked, vaulted the ticket barrier and sprinted down the escalator to a platform where a train was already waiting with its carriage doors open.

new advice for Brazlieans Traveling North...

Never-Ever wear your Coat in July.

Aside: lest this seems spurious, I did encounter a Mexican at a gig on the 11th, and whilst everyone else was sweltering, he was sashaying about in a thick woven poncho unaffected by the heat.

There's not a single news story that says that the police did not identify themselfs.

This was unclear yesterday, but seems to have been nailed down now, then.

It remains unclear whether the police did actually identify themselves as such, and it appears that the fatal encounter was with either plain clothes policemen or another unit in mufti.

Having said that, I certainly hope that the police did identify themselves as such before taking action.

The police usually shout something along the lines of "POLICE! DON'T MOVE". Police men are required to identify themselves when making an arrest, even in cirucmstances such as this.

If the police did not identify themselves then the possibility is opened that the man believed himself to actually be facing a new form of terrorist attack on the underground.

I do not think anyone could consider the presence of 20 men (probably of Causcasian race) as a new terrorist threat. Esepcially if they identifed themselves which is very likely indeed considering my previous point.

It may also be the case that the man did not know that those who shot him were armed until it was too late. Certainly, to state the glaringly obvious, plain clothes men do not carry guns in the open.

I believe the witness reports and the BBC reports stated that the men chased him with guns. Also having seen some of the related arrests, it seems police policy to have their weapons showing when they arrest or attempt to approach suspects of this nature.

Dude hate to say it but im glad they got him. He might be bombign the C.d.C in Atlanta or something by now.

The police usually shout something along the lines of "POLICE! DON'T MOVE". Police men are required to identify themselves when making an arrest, even in cirucmstances such as this.

Possibly they are required to identify themselves when making an arrest, however as far as use of firearms goes, according to the BBC....

"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. "

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

From scanning the last dozen or so pgs Id just like to add, thank God the bleeding hearts on here arent looking after us, we'd have no one being chased and shot, and therefore more room for terrorists to comfortably carry out their evil missions.
I commend the police for shooting that man, even though it was tragic in the man being innocent, it shows the police there are on the ball, and wont stuff around, if the publics lives are in danger.
They chase a dark man onto a train who is wearing a heavy coat, and acted suspiciously by running from them, even when they shouted for him to stop by calling police.
Any fool knows what 'police' means, isnt it 'poliza' in Brazil?

Seeing the trains carriage had other people in it, they shot the man dead fearing he would activate the 'bomb'.
They shot him in the head repeatedly to ensure he was dead, five shots is fair, and isnt really that great a number.
If they had shot him in the body, they may have activated any 'bomb' they thought he was carrying.
In these volatile situations, you dont have the luxury of time to figure things out, you can only go on the current situation, and of course mistakes will be made, but greater numbers of lives will be saved.
Id like to think, that the next dark suspicous man they chase and shoot dead will be the right decision, if he turns out to be carrying abomb.

"From scanning the last dozen or so pgs Id just like to add, thank God the bleeding hearts on here arent looking after us"

Fact is I was looking after you but this did not happen on my watch.

"we'd have no one being chased and shot, and therefore more room for terrorists to comfortably carry out their evil missions."

Idoit!

"even though it was tragic in the man being innocent, it shows the police there are on the ball"

On the ball shooting an innocent man - huh?

"and wont stuff around, if the publics lives are in danger"

But this guy they killed was a member of the public

"They chase a dark man"

Significant when one has a same like yours "whitepowers."

"Seeing the trains carriage had other people in it, they shot the man dead fearing he would activate the 'bomb'"

Yes and they got it wrong didn't they.

"five shots is fair, and isnt really that great a number."

As a general rule two is enough but hey why not empty half the clip

"If they had shot him in the body, they may have activated any 'bomb' they thought he was carrying."

Yep

"In these volatile situations, you dont have the luxury of time to figure things out"

No you rely on training

"you can only go on the current situation"

Yes and the inquest will look at that in detail

"and of course mistakes will be made"

And we have to learn from them

"but greater numbers of lives will be saved"

Not if we do not learn from the mistakes they won't

[QUOTE=Care paravel
Fact is I was looking after you but this did not happen on my watch.

Good, lets hope it stays that way.



Idoit!

whatever :rolleyes: take your pill or eat another donut deskboy.


On the ball shooting an innocent man - huh?

Yes, because he acted guilty, their not mindreaders.

But this guy they killed was a member of the public

He was from Brazil.


Significant when one has a same like yours

Thankyou.
Let me know when there alot of muslim terrorists blowing up buses and trains in London who are white.
Moron.

Yes and they got it wrong didn't they.

But... but!! if they had been right, they may have saved lives, get out of your textbook buddy, and get with the situation at hand.



As a general rule two is enough but hey why not empty half the clip

Your being too harsh, he may have just been nervous and got itchy with the trigger.


Yep

Its reasonable.

No you rely on training

Better review your training then, because these officers did nothing wrong.


Yes and the inquest will look at that in detail

And will clear the officers, whether you like it or not, not muslim are you?


And we have to learn from them

Rigggght... so next time a dark suspicious man runs on to a train after being screamed at to stop, and fails to do so, the police will not pursue the man because of this incident.
Man then unapposed blows up train. So where are you now.


Not if we do not learn from the mistakes they won't

Yes they will, the ones who have to learn are the public, or visitors to your country, which means, if the police pull guns on you and tell you to get down-you do that!

I propose adds on TV explaining this with other major languages as subtitles, pamplets in mailboxs, adds at Englands airports in most of the worlds main languages, this should stop guys like this from being mistakenly shot.

If a nation decides they're at war with these people, that'd be the intelligence services. Which would be MI5. And the typical choice, in accords with the Geneva Conventions was, "Work for us to tell the greatest lie of all time, or else. Were not going to tell you what 'else' is, it wouldn't be proper and were Brithish, but it's suitably gruesome."

But it doesn't matter, Cybertia didn't include that information in his statement. One might perhaps infer that he would leave that to the highly trained experts. You however chose to assume that he advocated killing people at random. When all he really did was advocate killing the assholes, and left out the means of how that's to be determined.

Which only shows out a significant short sightedness on his part does it not? The validity of Cybertia's statement was no more than the other person before who advocated carpet bombing Iraq in an attempt to get the terrorist while somehow avoiding uninvolved civilian casualties.


The Cops thought he was involved with previous bombings, they indentified themselves, he ran to where bombers run to kill people. QED. If he's not a terrorist, it was natural selection.

And I suppose that makes it all alright then? Criminal actions (as you indicated that it is for an execution like this without clear danger), is acceptable under the clause of natural selection?


I think you've mispelled, "probably" or "certainly." I can't tell, the font is smuddged.

You misspelled smudged. And since I didn't type either of those two words in the quoted section I think you were trying to reword my statements to something more fitting with your perception.


When someone is creating an immediate perception of great public risk, they die. They're weighing their life against the lives of those around them who aren't creating a dangerous situation. They don't get a trial, they don't deserve one, and they probably don't want one.

Considering the current state of affairs, anyone who is of asian or middle eastern descent and has a large coat would fall under the immediate perception of great public risk it seems.

Additionally, I have yet to see transcripts as to how these undercover officers identified themselves. If it was with guns drawn and a threatening manner, most people would run, thinking that they were going to get gunned down. Furthermore, there have been cases of racists based attacks against innocent people have there not? How was this person to know it was not another one of those, only far more deadly if he could not understand the language?

There are many more factors in this case that you are ignoring. Factors that may or may not color the case differently.

Well, as the debate over whether or not to assassinate Admiral Yamamoto notes, it's a pretty dicey prospect, both strategically and morally. But these extremists do consider themselves at war with not only Britain, but all of the West. So, by their own actions, views, and statements of their leaders, wouldn't their summary excecution be perfectly fair.


You're not presuming the police innocent, so you don't really believe that. The dead guy isn't getting a trail, the presumtion of innocence on his part is moot but irrelevant. I'm saying that with the observations put forth by the witnesses, there's no way in hell there's enough evidence to even indict the people involved. Between their word, the word of their freinds and the lack of dissenting voices from people who saw it go down, there isn't going to be any finding of fault in their actions. The only other person who might have had something to say on the matter isn't talking. Further more, this seed of doubt you keep clinging too is ludicrious on its face. It requires the presumption of a number of police being criminally insane at the same time, or that they premeditated this man's very public murder for unknown reasons in plain sight of the rest of the law enforcement community. Yeah.... Um I think we can safely describe the alternatives as wildly improbable.

I presume the agents, I will not use police until their unit has been identified, have shot a man in what seems to be a clear cut execution style killing. They are neither innocent, nor guilty, but are participants in a case which requires investigation. In most cases, that would mean detention while the investigation is underway.

Witnesses alone on the area however, do not throw very much light on the incident. Only one seemed to see anything that was suspicious, but hardly definining.

As I said, I am willing to accept the outcomes of the investigation, innocent or guilty. You are saying that there is no possible outcome other than innocence. I am saying that both outcomes are just as possible.


If I can't outrun them? YES! There's zero shot of overcoming that differential. So I wouldn't provoke them and make my situation worse. He killed himself when instead of complying with a lawful order he decided to provoke the police by doing what they were most afraid he'd do.

And how would you know that you can't outrun them? Fight/flight reflexes are built into all living things. Humans included. Intellectually, I know I cannot outrun a speeding subway train in a tunnel. But it doesn't mean I'm just going to stand there and be run down, rabbit frozen in headlights syndrome aside.

There's not a single news story that says that the police did not identify themselfs.Do you actually expect the Policemen to tell the Media
"...err It all happened too fast...err I think we yelled something about us being the Cops...Someone must have yelled that..."

dude...don't be silly :rolleyes:

So Whitepowers you do not think people from Brazil are members of the public? And because I think that shooting an innocent person requires an inquest you think I am muslim! So whitepowers the real issue here is that to you this is just another non-white guy down who does not even count in your books as a member of the public. We all knew the first people who would be taken in by the terrorists were the racist fringe - dance to their tune whitepowers - you are being watched too. You make me ashamed to be white!

So Whitepowers you do not think people from Brazil are members of the public? And because I think that shooting an innocent person requires an inquest you think I am muslim! So whitepowers the real issue here is that to you this is just another non-white guy down who does not even count in your books as a member of the public. We all knew the first people who would be taken in by the terrorists were the racist fringe - dance to their tune whitepowers - you are being watched too. You make me ashamed to be white!

Your not white, your just a washed out human being with no pride in his own skin colour.
You bought all the pc crap without even questioning it.

They chase a dark man onto a train who is wearing a heavy coat, and acted suspiciously by running from them, even when they shouted for him to stop by calling police.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41336000/jpg/_41336577_victim203.jpg

A 'dark' man?

Being a racist is one thing, being a racist without doing proper research is another.

London police killed wrong man

Police admitted yesterday they had shot dead the wrong man as they hunted for four men wanted for failed bomb attacks in Londond.

Plain clothes officers chased the man into an Undergroup train station on Friday after he ignored warnings to stop. As he boarded a train, police shot him five times at point-blank range, fearing he was about to set off a bomb.

Scotland Yard called the shooting tragic and regrettable.

'We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday,' police said in a statement.

'For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets,' the police said.

The statement added that the circumstances that led to the man's death were being investigated.

Policed hunting four would-be suicide bomb suspects-two weeks after suicide bombers killed 52 commuters - shot dead the man, who had been under surbeillance and had refused orders to halt.

The killing in front of shocked passengers on a packed Underground train triggered speculation that traditionally unarmed Brirish police had radically changed their iron-first-in-velvet-glove approach.

A second man was arrested yesterday as the massive manhunt for suspects gained pace and new security scares kept Londoners on nervous alert.

'I can confirm a second man has been arrested, it was [Friday] night,' a police spokesman said.

The arrest took place in the same area of south London, Stockwell, as a first suspect was apprehended on Friday, and close to the station where the man was shot.

Ohe of the detained men is reportedly one of the suspected bombers.


Excuse the typos.

Okay so I understood why he ran. A bunch of 'civilians' screaming stop and waving their guns around would make you want to run. No matter what you've done. It would me, anyways.

Again, what a horrible way to go.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41336000/jpg/_41336577_victim203.jpg

A 'dark' man?

Being a racist is one thing, being a racist without doing proper research is another.

Oh please spare me the pc paranoia, theres nothing wrong with racist with calling someones complexion dark, or light for that matter.
He looks like anice guy, what ashame this happenned to him, I heard he was Brazillian, I automatically pictured Pele, my fault.
He also looks on close examination of the pic, middle eastern.

Your not white, your just a washed out human being with no pride in his own skin colour.
You bought all the pc crap without even questioning it.

Stuff it, toothstrip.

Hey guys, not being English and not watching all that much TV lately I'm not an expert on the issue but Whitepowers and Care paravel, do you think yuo could just calm down a little? and try to have a nice debate? or am I asking too much? :confused:

Hey guys, not being English and not watching all that much TV lately I'm not an expert on the issue but Whitepowers and Care paravel, do you think yuo could just calm down a little? and try to have a nice debate? or am I asking too much? :confused:

Dont forget Dobbsworld, hes being naughty too.

since when does the man not being involved in the bombings make him totally innocent of all crimes?

British police are some of the best in the world, and you never hear stories of police shootings in England...so i say take the benifit of the doubt that the police acted in good faith on this one, wrong or not, they believed the passengers were in danger, some of the blame certainly can go on them, but not all like some of you are trying to do. British Police arnt american police where they shoot you 90 times if you have a banana in your hand...

since when does the man not being involved in the bombings make him totally innocent of all crimes?

British police are some of the best in the world, and you never hear stories of police shootings in England...so i say take the benifit of the doubt that the police acted in good faith on this one, wrong or not, they believed the passengers were in danger, some of the blame certainly can go on them, but not all like some of you are trying to do. British Police arnt american police where they shoot you 90 times if you have a banana in your hand...

I think most people here agree with you. You won't see a post from me blaming the police, but then you won't see me accusing an innocent man, which is what the police have stated he is. Jean Charles de Menezes is another innocent victim of terrorism.

Jean Charles de Menezes is another innocent victim of terrorism.
LOL, no, let's not write this one off against someone else's account. He got killed by the State. Not terrorists, not even indirectly, but by the government. We only look like idiots when we blame other people for the stuff we do, don't perpetuate it.

We now know he was an electrician, so we can easily imagine what happened. He probably bought some electrical goods, some paranoid shopkeeper reported him as a suspicious foreigner with a dark complexion buying electrical stuff, his house got put under surveilance, so when he walked out of the door, he was already dead. Had he stopped when the plain-clothes police shouted at him to stop, he would have probably died too - suicide bombers usually kill themselves when challenged, so they wouldn't have taken any chances. By running, he simply prolonged his life by a couple of minutes.

As I said before, he was a dead man the moment the police decided he should die. The people who blamed him for running away...what dumbasses. :rolleyes:

Two things I can't believe I'm hearing on the news right now - the British government sent some offical to meet the Brazilian minister instead of his counter-part, who seems to be in hiding. And the police keep saying with a straight face that these tactics are "like in Sri Lanka" ... Sri Lanka??? They just can't bring themselves to say Israel. The truth is too politically sensitive. :rolleyes:

We now know he was an electrician, so we can easily imagine what happened. He probably bought some electrical goods, some paranoid shopkeeper reported him as a suspicious foreigner with a dark complexion buying electrical stuff, his house got put under surveilance, so when he walked out of the door, he was already dead.


IIRC he was not under surveillance himself until he left a block of flats which were being watched by the police due to suspicions held concerning another resident there. If that is the case then it seems that his profession is irrelevant, it was instead his misfortune of living close to an actual suspect which was the first step in the tragedy.

Frankly if I didn't speak English and had three people with guns(who presumably if they are wearing cilvilian clothing are not obviously members of the Police) suddenly running at me, I would run too. Add in the fact that this guy had spent some time living in a favela Brasilian shanty town where the crime rate is astronomical, he's going to think the worse when chased with three men with guns and run.

Regardless of which, when they had him on the floor, why did the Police need to fire 5 rounds into his head? Have they not got handcuffs? He was unarmed.

The police clearly committed a crime and I hope that whoever committed this is facing prosecution.

Calling this Brasilian a victim of terrorism is disgusting as is blaming the terrorists for his death (as I understand London's mayor Livingstone has effectively done).

Frankly if I didn't speak English and had three people with guns(who presumably if they are wearing cilvilian clothing are not obviously members of the Police) suddenly running at me, I would run too.

The man appears to have been a fluent English speaker.

EDIT: found it -

"He had lived and worked in London legally for at least three years and spoke excellent English."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711779.stm

This may already have been posted, but it says here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4712061.stm) that the guy in question lived for a time in the slums of Sao Paulo, which would possibly explain why he legged it:

The BBC's correspondent in Brazil, Tom Gibb, said Mr Menezes had lived for a time in a slum district of Sao Paulo and that could explain why he had run from the police.

He said: "The murder rates in some of these slums are worse than in a lot of war zones and that could explain why, when plain clothes officers pulled a gun on him, he may have run away."

The man appears to have been a fluent English speaker.
Hmm, probably yes. But not as his mother-tongue. That and the three were in civilian clothing. Who's to say you can understand clearly what three men are shouting when you are terrified for your life when they have automatic weapons.

Plus, why do any Police need a weapon that discharges 650 rounds per minute. I think that is a danger to public safety in itself.

Dont forget Dobbsworld, hes being naughty too.

What, it's naughty to tell a racist to 'stuff it'?

Well, then, I'll really go for broke:

Take your RACIST bullshit and STUFF IT.

IIRC he was not under surveillance himself until he left a block of flats which were being watched by the police due to suspicions held concerning another resident there. If that is the case then it seems that his profession is irrelevant, it was instead his misfortune of living close to an actual suspect which was the first step in the tragedy.
A valid point. Another unfortunate possibility.

Which only shows out a significant short sightedness on his part does it not? The validity of Cybertia's statement was no more than the other person before who advocated carpet bombing Iraq in an attempt to get the terrorist while somehow avoiding uninvolved civilian casualties.
No. Maybe he was presuming that people would be at least a shade of reasonable about their assumptions, which is perhaps a little too optimistic. That the first assumption you made was patently ridiculous really in no way reflects on him.
And I suppose that makes it all alright then? Criminal actions (as you indicated that it is for an execution like this without clear danger), is acceptable under the clause of natural selection?
Yes. He made himself look so dangerous the cops had no choice but to bust some caps point blank into his noggin. That kind of activity isn't conducive to a long life. The police are responsible only for their actions to a reasonable perception of a threat, not for what another person does to create that perception. That the witnesses back up the police claim that the dead guy presented a grave and immediate threat means that his death wasn't a crime. While something *might* have been done earlier on to avoid this eventuality, by the time he want into the "tube" system, he'd killed himself, having taken away any reasonable police alternative.
You misspelled smudged. And since I didn't type either of those two words in the quoted section I think you were trying to reword my statements to something more fitting with your perception.
I'm going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume a very dry style of humor on your part the comic value of which is supposed to be compounded by the irony that the jokes aren't funny.
Considering the current state of affairs, anyone who is of asian or middle eastern descent and has a large coat would fall under the immediate perception of great public risk it seems.
Sure, when they're leaving an area under survelliance, not obeying lawful orders, running away from rather than to uniformed police. Here's a little hit about ALL predators. And Humans are predators, the most deadly that evolution could produce incidentally. Run, and they'll chase. I don't know what was going on in that guys head, but it wasn't smart, and it got him killed.
Additionally, I have yet to see transcripts as to how these undercover officers identified themselves. If it was with guns drawn and a threatening manner, most people would run, thinking that they were going to get gunned down. Furthermore, there have been cases of racists based attacks against innocent people have there not? How was this person to know it was not another one of those, only far more deadly if he could not understand the language?
I haven't seen anything that said they didn't identify themselves. I would assume they would unless London Police like to silently chase people down. Maybe that's part of the fun, but somehow I doubt it. And now we're entering a brave new world of WTF. Because there have been race based attacks anywhere in the world, it is reasonable for all Brazillians to be afraid the London police will gun them down, in full public view. He could understand the language. If he couldn't, here's a travel tip, when you're going to another country, learn the important words and phrases. Police isn't as important as bathroom, or water closet, but it's on the list.
I presume the agents, I will not use police until their unit has been identified, have shot a man in what seems to be a clear cut execution style killing. They are neither innocent, nor guilty, but are participants in a case which requires investigation. In most cases, that would mean detention while the investigation is underway.
Oh. So no one is innocent until proven guilty if they dedicate their professional lives to building and securing public goods. Does this view apply only to law enforcement, any government employees, or to even those in private enterprise contracted to perform certain tasks by the government? For my own edification.
Witnesses alone on the area however, do not throw very much light on the incident. Only one seemed to see anything that was suspicious, but hardly definining.

As I said, I am willing to accept the outcomes of the investigation, innocent or guilty. You are saying that there is no possible outcome other than innocence. I am saying that both outcomes are just as possible.
This is what I call chick math. "Hey, look, there are multiple outcomes, each outcome is equally likely." No. As you have noted, the witnesses have little to add that is definative. Where's the evidence that would render the version of events offered by those involved in the shooting unreasonable? Don't have that, then theirs was a lawful shooting. Now that probably won't make them feel any better about it. The personal face of this must be horrifiying for them, and a larger public absolution might well be completely hollow. But both outcomes are far from equal likelyhood.
And how would you know that you can't outrun them? Fight/flight reflexes are built into all living things. Humans included. Intellectually, I know I cannot outrun a speeding subway train in a tunnel. But it doesn't mean I'm just going to stand there and be run down, rabbit frozen in headlights syndrome aside.
Well, if one of them has a police radio, the chase pretty much ends there unless you like being hauled out from under a kiddie pool shirtless, wearing one flip-flop, and in this case with your head blown off. Beyond that there is how fit you appear with how fit they appear, now if you're an olympic runner, or a NFL cornerback, there might be some semblence of sense in taking that risk, presuming the people were're talking about probably aren't police. And guess what, you can even change your mind by looking over your shoulder and gauging how well you're doing.

Further more, I know a little bit about this fight or flight crap. One year at the Bite of Seattle (which is this weekend btw) when I was leaving there was what sounded like a gun shot behind a crowd of people. Some of them started running, and other people started running, and that makes you want to run too. But in you're head you're thinking, that's probably just a firecracker in dumpster, running like this is probably stupid, it's better to just calmly move away. So that is what I and the people I was with did. And we're waiting at a crosswalk, and some crazy panicing girl darts out in front of a bus. If the traffic light cycle had been just a little bit futher along, I would have seen her die. She risked her life to escape nonexistant danger, because she didn't think. And it's a choice. A descision to abandon yourself to emotion and not use the chief advantage of being human, a highly developed capacity for reason.

The scenerio of your best argument boils down to "What if this guy was completely ignorant and crazy unreasonable?" Well, the world is a dangerous place for people like that. What if as he started to trip, he tried to turn to fall on his back so they could see his hands, and said "Don't kill me." What if he just landed with his hands flat out in front of him? We'll never know, because right up until the end he wasn't thinking. That the police were thinking wasn't the problem.

No. Maybe he was presuming that people would be at least a shade of reasonable about their assumptions, which is perhaps a little too optimistic. That the first assumption you made was patently ridiculous really in no way reflects on him.

That is a maybe. Not a certainty. In which case, unless he states otherwise, both interpretations are equally valid are they not? I have seen sincere posts before that would have seemed ridiculous coming out of a human's mouth on this forum, so it would not seem impossible that my interpretation is wrong.

However, if he does post a correction later on, I will accept it at face value.


Yes. He made himself look so dangerous the cops had no choice but to bust some caps point blank into his noggin. That kind of activity isn't conducive to a long life. The police are responsible only for their actions to a reasonable perception of a threat, not for what another person does to create that perception. That the witnesses back up the police claim that the dead guy presented a grave and immediate threat means that his death wasn't a crime. While something *might* have been done earlier on to avoid this eventuality, by the time he want into the "tube" system, he'd killed himself, having taken away any reasonable police alternative.

Wait, you said that witnesses back up the police claim that the victim (what else would you define him legally?) presented a clear and present danger? I have not seen that evidence to date yet. Perhaps you would care to post a link stating such? Otherwise the basic claim is that it was a person who was running and obviously terrified who was caught and shot.


I'm going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume a very dry style of humor on your part the comic value of which is supposed to be compounded by the irony that the jokes aren't funny.


I am confused. I was not joking.


Sure, when they're leaving an area under survelliance, not obeying lawful orders, running away from rather than to uniformed police. Here's a little hit about ALL predators. And Humans are predators, the most deadly that evolution could produce incidentally. Run, and they'll chase. I don't know what was going on in that guys head, but it wasn't smart, and it got him killed.

Who was the one who asked him to stop first? Uniformed or undercover? Did they draw weapons first or did they ask him to stop first? Were the weapons already pointed or were they in safe (pointed at the ground)?

There are many factors here which might have caused this person to run. As to being not very smart, I have a question for you. Many people have done things that in hindsight seem very stupid. Does that mean we should excuse their deaths when it occurs as natural selection? Or perhaps you advocate their removal from the human gene pool? That sirrah is eugenics, and one step below mass murder.

Additionally, no matter how you look at it, humans are still animals that run on emotion and instincts. The instinct for self preservation is very strong in humans, and that often translates into a flight reflex. Some people might be able to ignore it, but that is a minority. Should the majority then be punished?


I haven't seen anything that said they didn't identify themselves. I would assume they would unless London Police like to silently chase people down. Maybe that's part of the fun, but somehow I doubt it. And now we're entering a brave new world of WTF. Because there have been race based attacks anywhere in the world, it is reasonable for all Brazillians to be afraid the London police will gun them down, in full public view. He could understand the language. If he couldn't, here's a travel tip, when you're going to another country, learn the important words and phrases. Police isn't as important as bathroom, or water closet, but it's on the list.

As I said, there are many factors that are as of yet, unknown. Most importantly is who was the first one to approach and confront him. If it was undercover officers with firearms drawn, given his living area's murder rate, he could easily have thought it was another such incident. At that point, he would run.


Oh. So no one is innocent until proven guilty if they dedicate their professional lives to building and securing public goods. Does this view apply only to law enforcement, any government employees, or to even those in private enterprise contracted to perform certain tasks by the government? For my own edification.


So far as I know, the discharging of a firearm leading to death, even in self defense, involves a detention of unspecified time (usually several hours to a day), where the surviving party is questioned over the incident.

Does that apply to the police and armed branches as well outside of a warzone or do they have special rules for that?


This is what I call chick math. "Hey, look, there are multiple outcomes, each outcome is equally likely." No. As you have noted, the witnesses have little to add that is definative. Where's the evidence that would render the version of events offered by those involved in the shooting unreasonable? Don't have that, then theirs was a lawful shooting. Now that probably won't make them feel any better about it. The personal face of this must be horrifiying for them, and a larger public absolution might well be completely hollow. But both outcomes are far from equal likelyhood.

Equally, where is the witness account that defines the victim as a clear and present danger? The only one they had was when the police shouted out their warning to get down wasn't it? What did they as witnesses, have to say about their personal observation of the victim? Not much I would think.


Well, if one of them has a police radio, the chase pretty much ends there unless you like being hauled out from under a kiddie pool shirtless, wearing one flip-flop, and in this case with your head blown off. Beyond that there is how fit you appear with how fit they appear, now if you're an olympic runner, or a NFL cornerback, there might be some semblence of sense in taking that risk, presuming the people were're talking about probably aren't police. And guess what, you can even change your mind by looking over your shoulder and gauging how well you're doing.


So you are assuming only those in prime physical condition would consider running? How peculiar. Evidence contradicts you.


Further more, I know a little bit about this fight or flight crap. One year at the Bite of Seattle (which is this weekend btw) when I was leaving there was what sounded like a gun shot behind a crowd of people. Some of them started running, and other people started running, and that makes you want to run too. But in you're head you're thinking, that's probably just a firecracker in dumpster, running like this is probably stupid, it's better to just calmly move away. So that is what I and the people I was with did. And we're waiting at a crosswalk, and some crazy panicing girl darts out in front of a bus. If the traffic light cycle had been just a little bit futher along, I would have seen her die. She risked her life to escape nonexistant danger, because she didn't think. And it's a choice. A descision to abandon yourself to emotion and not use the chief advantage of being human, a highly developed capacity for reason.

All you have proven is that you are capable of overcoming the fight/flight reflex where others have not. Congratulations. Do you want those who cannot do so to die?


The scenerio of your best argument boils down to "What if this guy was completely ignorant and crazy unreasonable?" Well, the world is a dangerous place for people like that. What if as he started to trip, he tried to turn to fall on his back so they could see his hands, and said "Don't kill me." What if he just landed with his hands flat out in front of him? We'll never know, because right up until the end he wasn't thinking. That the police were thinking wasn't the problem.

Crazy unreasonable by running from people with guns which may have been aimed at him? You are only using his actions as the whole of the sum. But at the same time, you are ignoring the factors that may have led to his initial flight that were outside his realm of control (i.e. the actions of the officers who initially intercepted him)

This was a tragedy. But it does not change the fact that it may have been avoided through the actions of BOTH parties. Not one party alone.

Make some more excuses for the poor Brazilian guy that ran away from the police . I need more entertainment . Bleeding heart bedbugs from mars .
Many factors...many many many factors X infinity !
It doesnt matter WHY he ran ...He ran and he died for it !
Cops do not read minds . Maybe nitwits with cop issues should wear a orange panel that flashes their conditions to the people around them so they know whats up . Guess what HE STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOT for his actions !
GET OVER IT .

Make some more excuses for the poor Brazilian guy that ran away from the police . I need more entertainment . Bleeding heart bedbugs from mars .
Many factors...many many many factors X infinity !
It doesnt matter WHY he ran ...He ran and he died for it !
Cops do not read minds . Maybe nitwits with cop issues should wear a orange panel that flashes their conditions to the people around them so they know whats up . Guess what HE STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOT for his actions !
GET OVER IT .

I was once on shoreleave in a bar that shall remain nameless in a country that shall remain nameless with an opo who shall remain nameless and some fat local with a big beer gut and small brain accused my mate of being a bleeding heart because he was sad as a result of seeing some kid running across the road get killed by a three ton truck earlier that day. The fat beer belly said it was a busy road and "he ran he died for it... get over it." Next thing you know my mate takes his service browning, sticks it up the fat guy's arse, and sends a 9mm round up there!

My point is beer and guts, that you so remind me of that fat guy! I mean the logic you use, your compassion and the way you articulate your arguments are just the same! You don't happen to walk with a limp and have trouble sitting down do you?

It doesnt matter WHY he ran ...He ran and he died for it !

Challenge for you: hey, pal, show me a single piece of properly passed UK legislation that shows me that running from the cops is punishable by death, and I'll admit that the killing of the man is justified. Until then quit trying to shift the blame from a failure in police policy to the actions of an innocent man. The cops fucked up, not the civilian here.

Dont forget Dobbsworld, hes being naughty too.

Yes, but I didn't notice him till I'd already posted and I was about to eat tea so i couldn't be bothered adding it :D

Challenge for you: hey, pal, show me a single piece of properly passed UK legislation that shows me that running from the cops is punishable by death, and I'll admit that the killing of the man is justified. Until then quit trying to shift the blame from a failure in police policy to the actions of an innocent man. The cops fucked up, not the civilian here.Agreed - although I think it's fair to say that judgement on the officers involved should be left to the IPCC. The London police have been working under extremely pressurised circumstances and it's very easy to see this going the other way.

Yes, this was a cock-up, and a tragic one. But the public by and large do seem to expect the police to be psychic. "Well, they should've KNOWN it was only a replica gun"; "well, they should've KNOWN he wasn't a suicide bomber".

The circumstances conspired against this man. That he was supposedly wearing bulky clothes on a hot day; that he was carrying electrical equipment (he was an electrician on his way to a job); that his house, for whatever reason, had been placed under surveillance; that he instinctively, if understandably, ran from police when challenged... None of these things excuse the mistake that was made, but they do perhaps help to explain it.

And the revelation that he was in fact an innocent man wrongly killed will resonate strongly with the police. Despite the common assumption of those who would like to see the organisation dismantled as a threat to our civil liberties, I can assure the forum that police officers are indeed human as well - well-trained, but still prone to errors of judgement, and I cannot begin to imagine how the officer responsible must feel about this. To believe he was protecting the public, only to find that he had killed one of them himself.

But perhaps, as some suggest, he fired simply because he was a mad psycho and wanted to kill someone? No. I can reject that outright because I know something about the training and the standards required of firearms officers. As I said before, if he fired then he genuinely believed he had justification to
do it.

Does that excuse what happened? No, and it's not meant to. Like I said, the investigation is for the IPCC to deal with. But what I do know is that this incident has only served to undermine the police's ability to deal with the threat perceived by the public. The public want the police to protect them but they want their judgement and their information to be perfect - and that's a standard that no human agency can achieve.

The media, of course, are thoroughly enjoying the whole thing, since fear sells newspapers, which is why they are doing all they can to stir up fear and mistrust in the British public and why, unfortunately, this incident has played right into their hands.

An eyewitness report in the paper this morning states that "I was still very near to them and I never heard anyone say the word "police". I heard one voice shout "get down on the floor" and a different voice shout "get down". But that was all I heard anyone say".

The police account states that the man got on a bus to get to the Tube station. How did the police decide that he was not a risk when he got on the bus but was a risk when he got on the Tube?

An eyewitness report in the paper this morning states that "I was still very near to them and I never heard anyone say the word "police". I heard one voice shout "get down on the floor" and a different voice shout "get down". But that was all I heard anyone say".

The police account states that the man got on a bus to get to the Tube station. How did the police decide that he was not a risk when he got on the bus but was a risk when he got on the Tube?

If he got on a bus he would undoubtably have had someone on the bus following him. If they had no reason to believe he posed a risk on the bus they would not have done anything, which they didn't. I think the turning point in the whole saga is when he vaulted the automatic ticket barriers at the station.

Once he did something suspicious they acted and this whole sorry affair was carried out.

I for one am not going to blame the police, the training they have to go through means they won't do anything without a damned good reason and permission from officers up the command chain.

British police are some of the best in the world, and you never hear stories of police shootings in England

It helps that we don't generally let them have guns...

Better to be shot on the tube....than in the tube.

*Rimshot*

If he got on a bus he would undoubtably have had someone on the bus following him. If they had no reason to believe he posed a risk on the bus they would not have done anything, which they didn't. I think the turning point in the whole saga is when he vaulted the automatic ticket barriers at the station.

Once he did something suspicious they acted and this whole sorry affair was carried out.

I for one am not going to blame the police, the training they have to go through means they won't do anything without a damned good reason and permission from officers up the command chain.

WTF?

The man left his block of flats and was followed by undercover cops. They did not act until almost at the station. They then drew on him. Then he ran (as would I, he used to live in Sao Paulo remember) jumped the barriers (yep, so would I if I didn't want to be caught) they caught him up at the train, shoved him to the floor, pinned him down and shot him.

The term 'catalogue of errors' comes to mind.

Challenge for you: hey, pal, show me a single piece of properly passed UK legislation that shows me that running from the cops is punishable by death, and I'll admit that the killing of the man is justified. Until then quit trying to shift the blame from a failure in police policy to the actions of an innocent man. The cops fucked up, not the civilian here.
So the slighlty different scenario, the police fail to shoot, the man detonates the explosives he has strapped to his body under hios bulky jacket. Forty people are killed and 60 wounded.
The press asks why he was not stopped and posters complian about the police failing to act.

There is legislation to cover this. If and armed officer thinks that the person poses a deadly threat to them or others they have a duty to stop that person. In most cases by shooting them.

Try being an armed officer, fully responsible for your own actions, put in situations of extreme stress and having to make life or death decisions in a matter of seconds.

This was terrible for ALL concerned.

That is a maybe. Not a certainty. In which case, unless he states otherwise, both interpretations are equally valid are they not? I have seen sincere posts before that would have seemed ridiculous coming out of a human's mouth on this forum, so it would not seem impossible that my interpretation is wrong.No. The stupidest possibility you can come up with to accuse another person of endorsing isn't on equal footing with what they said. A reasonable person would default to assuming something that was at worst internally consistent. You, for unfathomable reasons, defaulted to assuming he was endorsing something completely nonsensical. That you chose to add something to make his views appear unreasonable so that you might better attack it isn't in an of itself irrational, it's a common tactic called a "straw-man." That you've been called on it, and persist, well, there's just no explaining that. Maybe you just know debate from the pervasive form political analysis" currently on TV, but I can only broadly speculate.Wait, you said that witnesses back up the police claim that the victim (what else would you define him legally?) presented a clear and present danger? I have not seen that evidence to date yet. Perhaps you would care to post a link stating such? Otherwise the basic claim is that it was a person who was running and obviously terrified who was caught and shot.The witnesses to the event understood the officers were police, at least one thought (even if through the power of suggestion) that he saw wires on the guys belt, and none of them were screaming to the papers, and anyone who would listen that the police just murdered a man in front of them in cold blood. Read the other links that have been posted. Or use google news. If the witnesses don't come forth and make definitive statements to the contrary, the police involved will at most be found to have committed some minor procedural violation, probably long before the man was killed, put on administrative leave and then shuffled around, until people forget, or they file a stress claim.I am confused. I was not joking.Maybe it's an age thing then.Who was the one who asked him to stop first? Uniformed or undercover? Did they draw weapons first or did they ask him to stop first? Were the weapons already pointed or were they in safe (pointed at the ground)?Doesn't matter. A lawful order is a lawful order, this is where it pays to have good judgment. Maybe if they fired at him before shouting for him to stop I'd be compelled to some level of agreement.... But they didn't.There are many factors here which might have caused this person to run. As to being not very smart, I have a question for you. Many people have done things that in hindsight seem very stupid. Does that mean we should excuse their deaths when it occurs as natural selection? Or perhaps you advocate their removal from the human gene pool? That sirrah is eugenics, and one step below mass murder.When people kill themselves in tragic or comical ways, yes it's a personal tragedy for those directly involved, but it is also inevitable. To childproof the world is to trap everyone in an inflexible tyranny where they can neither prosper nor fail as a consequence of their choices. What I advocate is immaterial as, people are all too willing to void their personal warranties. To stop them we'd have to lock everyone up, with everyone locked up, who would be the jailors, and what would become of all of humanities great works? That some turkeys drown for their curiosity about the rain, that's the price of doing business.

And for the record eugenics is more than culling people based on IQ test scores (or other traits), using genetic engineering to overcome birth-defects would be one example and the only one we're likely to see in our lifetimes. Which I agree would only be slightly worse than mass murder. (Damn doctors always coming up with therapies to cure crippling illnesses, bettering peoples lives, who do those sanctimonious assholes think they are?)Additionally, no matter how you look at it, humans are still animals that run on emotion and instincts. The instinct for self preservation is very strong in humans, and that often translates into a flight reflex. Some people might be able to ignore it, but that is a minority. Should the majority then be punished?The instinct for self-preservation was catastrophically broken in the guy we're talking about. Out of a whole host of things he might have done to save his life, some of which would surely result in only a minor inconvenience, he chose one of the very that would kill him. The world is a dispassionate reaper of the unwary. That's a fact. Shake your fist, call it names. But while we've made a lot of progress in the time since the last ice-age, we just can't erase that fundamental reality. Life is a delicate balancing act, and while it can demonstrate amazing resilience, ultimately it is fragile, and some mistakes can't be undone. The majority of people who drive, sometimes, even frequently, aren't as attentive as they should be. One presumes they'd prefer not to suffer the consequences they invite.So far as I know, the discharging of a firearm leading to death, even in self defense, involves a detention of unspecified time (usually several hours to a day), where the surviving party is questioned over the incident.Typically, they'll have the same rights as anyone else. For a shooting that they believe is justified, I would assume they'd cooperate candidly to move the process along. But no doubt they could choose a more adversarial route if they felt it benefited them. Under most military codes of justice those in the military have lesser rights within that organization. Either way the inquest into a shooting doesn't bring with it an assumption of guilt.Equally, where is the witness account that defines the victim as a clear and present danger? The only one they had was when the police shouted out their warning to get down wasn't it? What did they as witnesses, have to say about their personal observation of the victim? Not much I would think.The witnesses need to provide a STRONG CONTRADICTION to the version of events offered by the police for your position to find any traction. That the Police ordered everyone to "Get Down" alone provides evidence that they thought there was a threat to the security of everyone since they were planning on having to change his hard top to a sporty convertible at that point.So you are assuming only those in prime physical condition would consider running? How peculiar. Evidence contradicts you.No, I'm stating that only those who correctly estimate themselves as being significantly faster than their pursuers are going to achieve their goals, and even then only if circumstances are permitting. But you're right, people who won't get away run all the time. Take special notice of how few of them are Nobel Prize winners. And this time, it got one guy killed.All you have proven is that you are capable of overcoming the fight/flight reflex where others have not. Congratulations. Do you want those who cannot do so to die?I didn't overcome it. That instinct played a factor in my decision, as it should. But I didn't abandon myself to it and irrational decisions. And that's a choice. That's a choice people make when their ultimately deciding how close of a brush with death they're going to have. And the ones who choose poorly and are unlucky at the same time, will die. What I "want" is of no consequence. God's not going to illuminate me in a shaft of holy light and say, "You make the call." Being unaware is often a dangerous proposition, and those who make a habit of it frequently die as a result. That you seem to want to tug at some heartstrings, or attach some incoherent morality to what is simply an unbiased empirical fact (I can only assume to affirm your 'humanity') is just futile. What anyone thinks of the matter doesn't change it.Crazy unreasonable by running from people with guns which may have been aimed at him? You are only using his actions as the whole of the sum. But at the same time, you are ignoring the factors that may have led to his initial flight that were outside his realm of control (i.e. the actions of the officers who initially intercepted him)Even in America the guys who are likely to blow you away in public wear ski masks, or are doing a drive-by. If you can see their faces, and you're not out of public view, odds are, even if they've got guns, you're fine so long as you don't provoke them. I can only imagine what it's like in a country where there isn't a legal registered firearm for every man woman a child, it's unusual for the police to carry firearms and everything is under surveillance. All he had to do was make rational decisions, like run to the police. He failed and it killed him. In the end it's probably a little ironic that he was an electrician.

WTF?

The man left his block of flats and was followed by undercover cops. They did not act until almost at the station. They then drew on him. Then he ran (as would I, he used to live in Sao Paulo remember) jumped the barriers (yep, so would I if I didn't want to be caught) they caught him up at the train, shoved him to the floor, pinned him down and shot him.

The term 'catalogue of errors' comes to mind.
Well if that is how you would react to police officers in the UK during a time of terrorist activity,I do not fancy your long term chances.

Kibolonia, I'm afraid you are making as many assumptions as Non Aligned States and you have failed to read posts on this thread that show your assumptions to be incorrect. I don't disagree with what you are saying in general but you are straying down the same path as NAS.

Officials are now saying he had an out of date visa (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm), so he probably ran because he feared being deported. That doesn't make it any more sensible though.

A possible motivation for his running
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm
the guy was in the UK on an out of date visa.

That wouldn't be enough to make me run from armed police shouting what ever they were shouting (I expect it will turn out to be "Armed police, stop or we shoot"), but could explain some of it.

I expect it will turn out to be "Armed police, stop or we shoot"

That's not what an eyewitness report says. No eyewitness report has so far said that police identified themselves and 1 eyewitness report has said that they did not.

Kibolonia, I'm afraid you are making as many assumptions as Non Aligned States and you have failed to read posts on this thread that show your assumptions to be incorrect. I don't disagree with what you are saying in general but you are straying down the same path as NAS.

Officials are now saying he had an out of date visa (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm), so he probably ran because he feared being deported. That doesn't make it any more sensible though.
The only assumption I'm aware of making is that the Police involved gave him a lawful order to stop.

Other than that....

That's not what an eyewitness report says. No eyewitness report has so far said that police identified themselves and 1 eyewitness report has said that they did not.

The only eyewitness reports I have read so far have been from the people on the train. If you can point me towards reports from people who saw the chase start, I'd be grateful.

The only assumption I'm aware of making is that the Police involved gave him a lawful order to stop.

Other than that....

ATM a 'lawful order' does not require them to identify themselves. This guy came from one of the more gangster-ridden cities in the world, what's he supposed to think when a bunch of guys randomly pull guns out and yell at him?

ATM a 'lawful order' does not require them to identify themselves. This guy came from one of the more gangster-ridden cities in the world, what's he supposed to think when a bunch of guys randomly pull guns out and yell at him?

His family, speaking on the BBC this morning from Brazil (on tape) said that they didn't understand why he ran as he knew the appropriate response to being challenged by armed police (having lived, as you say, in one of the more gangster-ridden cities in the world). I would be very surprised if they didn't have plain clothes police in Brazil.

We're never going to know why he ran, we can only speculate.

ATM a 'lawful order' does not require them to identify themselves. This guy came from one of the more gangster-ridden cities in the world, what's he supposed to think when a bunch of guys randomly pull guns out and yell at him?
That for the past three years he has been in England and should never have seen a hand gun. That he is more likley to be struck by lightning than be subject to a random shooting in the UK.

ATM a 'lawful order' does not require them to identify themselves. This guy came from one of the more gangster-ridden cities in the world, what's he supposed to think when a bunch of guys randomly pull guns out and yell at him?
I don't know.... Maybe that he's in one of the great cities of the world, where's he's lived for a while, in a stable country, as opposed to a lawless shanty town? Acting as if you're in the lobby of the Savoy when you're really in a crackhouse in Compton, probably not the best strategy for survival either. Next time, he should follow Sun Tzu's advice, know where the fuck he is.

ATM a 'lawful order' does not require them to identify themselves. This guy came from one of the more gangster-ridden cities in the world, what's he supposed to think when a bunch of guys randomly pull guns out and yell at him?

Some info on the terms of engagement http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711619.stm

No idea what the Metropolitan police guidelines are though, as exact tactics are kept secret.

The guy was innocent. Not remotely connected to terrorist activity and our police decided to take a leaf out the good ole US of A's book and shoot now, ask questions later.

My faith in the UK police service was seriously lacking after what happened in Edinburgh (i.e. beating 17 people into comas and deliberately trapping and asaulting peaceful protestors like my brother) and now they've adopted this American policy of lethal force in all circumstances I am truely ashamed to be British.

This is not the way we do things. We're meant to have a top class investigation squad, full of blokes like Sherlock Holmes, making sure that the front line police don't have to fire their weapons at all, let alone with lethal force. We're meant to be a nation dedicated to catching the right guy, not just anyone to make it look like they're doing their jobs. I mean look, if that's why they shot him they only demonstrated how *badly* they're doing their jobs, by shooting the wrong man!

I hate the influence a certain other nation is having on ours. I say we strive to be more like Europe, NOT America.

The guy was innocent. Not remotely connected to terrorist activity and our police decided to take a leaf out the good ole US of A's book and shoot now, ask questions later.

My faith in the UK police service was seriously lacking after what happened in Edinburgh (i.e. beating 17 people into comas and deliberately trapping and asaulting peaceful protestors like my brother) and now they've adopted this American policy of lethal force in all circumstances I am truely ashamed to be British.

This is not the way we do things. We're meant to have a top class investigation squad, full of blokes like Sherlock Holmes, making sure that the front line police don't have to fire their weapons at all, let alone with lethal force. We're meant to be a nation dedicated to catching the right guy, not just anyone to make it look like they're doing their jobs. I mean look, if that's why they shot him they only demonstrated how *badly* they're doing their jobs, by shooting the wrong man!

I hate the influence a certain other nation is having on ours. I say we strive to be more like Europe, NOT America.
They'd have shot him a lot bloody sooner in France, Germany or Holland!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/comment/story/0,16141,1535625,00.html?gusrc=rss

Interesting wee editorial.

The only eyewitness reports I have read so far have been from the people on the train. If you can point me towards reports from people who saw the chase start, I'd be grateful.

The report is in this morning's Metro, so it is also probably in today's Evening Standard. The website for those newspapers is www.thisislondon.co.uk but if you can find any actual news on that website you must be a genius! It's the worst newspaper website ever.

The report is in this morning's Metro, so it is also probably in today's Evening Standard. The website for those newspapers is www.thisislondon.co.uk but if you can find any actual news on that website you must be a genius! It's the worst newspaper website ever.

Darn it, I didn't bother reading those pages this morning (I can't do heavy news on an empty stomach) and promptly put it back for someone else to read when I left the tube :)

Found it in the Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15775506&method=full&siteid=89488&headline=london--the-aftermath--my-heart-i-is-shattered--name_page.html) about 2/3 of the way down.

Found it in the Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15775506&method=full&siteid=89488&headline=london--the-aftermath--my-heart-i-is-shattered--name_page.html) about 2/3 of the way down.
If the witness was there for the end of the shooting (and the order to get down on the floor) it would seem unlikely that he saw what might have come before that. The article is somewhat ambigious, on this point.

I suppose what you'd really want is the timeline from the bus to the "tube." I just find it hard to believe that the police would just give chase and wouldn't shout for him to stop. Why would you want to run after someone if you didn't have to?

Excuse the ignorance but when did the British police get guns. I thought they didn't carry them....

Found it in the Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15775506&method=full&siteid=89488&headline=london--the-aftermath--my-heart-i-is-shattered--name_page.html) about 2/3 of the way down.

Unfotunately for the Daily Record, the witness (Lee Ruston), he is quoted here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/talking_point/4703867.stm) as saying that he was on the train, so not outside the station, so I still haven't heard from any witnesses from before the guy ran.

Excuse the ignorance but when did the British police get guns. I thought they didn't carry them....

Specialist units have them

Thanks

No. The stupidest possibility you can come up with to accuse another person of endorsing isn't on equal footing with what they said. A reasonable person would default to assuming something that was at worst internally consistent. You, for unfathomable reasons, defaulted to assuming he was endorsing something completely nonsensical. That you chose to add something to make his views appear unreasonable so that you might better attack it isn't in an of itself irrational, it's a common tactic called a "straw-man." That you've been called on it, and persist, well, there's just no explaining that.

Possibly because I don't see it as a straw man. In either case, I am willing to let this matter lie until Cybertia comes back to clarify on it. That would be best in my opinion.


Maybe it's an age thing then.


Again, I fail to underestand your meaning. Or do you mean that my lack of understanding of your references is due to my age and mental maturity (or lack thereoff as you appear to be implying)


Doesn't matter. A lawful order is a lawful order, this is where it pays to have good judgment. Maybe if they fired at him before shouting for him to stop I'd be compelled to some level of agreement.... But they didn't.

There are still various factors to be listed I believe. Particularly how he was originally intercepted. Once that is established, well, we shall see. Given the nature of this argument (significant assumptions on both sides), I suppose it would be best if we waited for the full report to be published.


And for the record eugenics is more than culling people based on IQ test scores (or other traits), using genetic engineering to overcome birth-defects would be one example and the only one we're likely to see in our lifetimes. Which I agree would only be slightly worse than mass murder. (Damn doctors always coming up with therapies to cure crippling illnesses, bettering peoples lives, who do those sanctimonious assholes think they are?)

Very well then. I apologize for the incorrect use of terms. Culling then, as you have so handily supplied.

I would also suppose that it is sarcasm that you are using in this post?

This is not the way we do things. We're meant to have a top class investigation squad, full of blokes like Sherlock Holmes, making sure that the front line police don't have to fire their weapons at all, let alone with lethal force.

Historical note: it should be remembered that Holmes was a consulting detective - a private eye, in other words - while the oft clueless and useless Inspector Lestrade was Arthur Conan Doyle's take on the actual police force. Seems like doubts about the efficacy of standard police operations is not a new thing, but then that is hardly news.

Again, I fail to underestand your meaning. Or do you mean that my lack of understanding of your references is due to my age and mental maturity (or lack thereoff as you appear to be implying)It's not important. Anything that happenes before people are ten or so gets filed under ancient history.There are still various factors to be listed I believe. Particularly how he was originally intercepted. Once that is established, well, we shall see. Given the nature of this argument (significant assumptions on both sides), I suppose it would be best if we waited for the full report to be published.While the arguing over the specifics of this one case might have to wait for the full report to be resolved, the debate over the correctness of the policy using the possibilities in this example could continue quite splendedly. In particular, the proper response and the bias law enforcement show in the wieghing of a life versus the greater public good. Now is probably the best time to continue that debate, since it's centerstage at least for a little while. Waiting to debate the specific incident suffers from two things: 1. The larger policy debate gets lost in the details of this guys death, and 2. there it's not as likely to be as interesting after people have waited and allowed their ideas to settle, to say nothing of the potential for a blonde female to fall down some well and hold a nation spellbound. I think the vague nature of the reporting forces people to at least touch base with the larger policy issue just to keep from drifting off completely into space.
I would also suppose that it is sarcasm that you are using in this post?I think a little sarcasm is good. It keeps things playful, and invites a certain amount of liveliness. It was more in response to other semantec arguments (which I personally detest) people were making at the time I was writing it anyway.