NationStates Jolt Archive

They approached him when he was an immediate danger to other people. The logic is that the risk to everyone else in the train and the policeman himself by not attempting to shoot the man outweighed the risk to the policeman (who, as stated was at risk anyway since tube trains arent awfully big) by approaching him.

Yes, we've already established that the police waited until it was too late before acting.

Read my previous post with regards the unecessary risks to the police by approaching a potential suicide bomber who is not posing any threat to the general public.

I've read your previous posts, you seem to be making things up as you go along. You should have anticipated that people from this forum would be more intelligent than to believe you have a play by play account of what actually happened.

Generally you do shoot suicide bombers, because they arent awfully inclined to answer questions.

How many suicide bombers have you interrogated?

Using a vehicle seriously impairs their mobility in a crowded area: If the suspect went into the subway or back alley, dismounting could cost valuable time. Also, if the suspect was a suicide bomber, the vehicle would alert him and he would simply move to another area where he thought there was less police.

I don't understand what kind of answers you people are looking for...

Oye Oye, if they're willing to die for their cause, they won't suddenly decide to put their hands up and talk. Situations around the world have shown us that many times, when a suicide bomber is on his last ropes, he'll just blow himself up anyway. Shooting him in the head is the best way to keep him from injuring others.

Reread my post. Alternatively, have some English comprehension lessons first.

I was walking along the road one day and glanced down in time to notice some feces in front of me. I stepped over it but for some reason I looked over my shoulder and to my surprise it was still dog shit.

Using a vehicle seriously impairs their mobility in a crowded area: If the suspect went into the subway or back alley, dismounting could cost valuable time. Also, if the suspect was a suicide bomber, the vehicle would alert him and he would simply move to another area where he thought there was less police.

I don't understand what kind of answers you people are looking for...

The dismounting time could be considered allowable in certain situations such as if the suspect had put a large distance between himself and the officers before they could react. The officers were plain clothes and would have a unmarked vehicle which could be used to catch up.

This doesnt really have much bearing on the situation we're discussing but i thought i would just add it in to cover any future arguments

They didnt try to directly apprehend him in the street (which is a public area) because doing so would be a threat to them, and an unnecessary one when they didnt know that he wouldnt just give himself up and when there were no other people around who he could be a threat to.

So waiting for him to enter a crowded subway car was a safer alternative?

Using a vehicle seriously impairs their mobility in a crowded area: If the suspect went into the subway or back alley, dismounting could cost valuable time. Also, if the suspect was a suicide bomber, the vehicle would alert him and he would simply move to another area where he thought there was less police.

I don't understand what kind of answers you people are looking for...

Oye Oye, if they're willing to die for their cause, they won't suddenly decide to put their hands up and talk. Situations around the world have shown us that many times, when a suicide bomber is on his last ropes, he'll just blow himself up anyway. Shooting him in the head is the best way to keep him from injuring others.

The police didn't know if Sr. de Menezes was a suicide bomber. At the time he was only a suspect, and one that could have been apprehended if the police had been more capable with their initial encounter with him.

Of course they didn't know he was a suicide bomber.

But they assumed him to be one, which is why they shot him five times in the head. That's not standard operating procedures, its one the Israelis use all the time, and a rule of thumb for taking down a suicide bomber.

[QUOTE]Of course they didn't know he was a suicide bomber.

But they assumed him to be one, which is why they shot him five times in the head.

According to reports I've read, they shot him seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.

That's not standard operating procedures, its one the Israelis use all the time, and a rule of thumb for taking down a suicide bomber.

I'm not very impressed by how the Israelis are handling their situation either.

This was a guy wearing a heavy jacket in July. Running. Through the subway.

England's summer is like the start of our Spring.
For english people, it's darn hot.
For most mediterranean/tropical weather people it's pretty chilly.
You would not see me in T-Shirt, at least.


Why did they shoot him five times in the head, execution style? I think you should consider the fact that a suicide bomber can push a button and blow himself and anyone near him to smithereens. If he was a suicide bomber, he still could have killed police officers and civvies when he was tackled: it only takes a push of a button. Shooting him in the head is the only way to guarantee the neutralization of a suicide bomber.


Wrong.
There is no *proper* way to neutralize a suicide bomber.
That would really depend on the approach of the police forces and the type of bomb he is handling.

Oye Oye:

The number of shots isn't important. The officers were clearly aiming for the head.

You may not be impressed by the israelis, but they're the experts when it come to this sort of thing.

Tiago:

Maybe so, but it was suspicious enough for the English police.

Furthermore, for that situation, it was the proper method. He appeared to be wearing a bomb that was situated around the torso. For any suicide bomber that's within close range of an officer, killing him is the best way to ensure he doesn't set it off. The jacket makes a torso or arm shot too risky, and the legs would not kill him. The quickest way to kill him was through the head.

Tiago:

Maybe so, but it was suspicious enough for the English police.

Furthermore, for that situation, it was the proper method. He appeared to be wearing a bomb that was situated around the torso. For any suicide bomber that's within close range of an officer, killing him is the best way to ensure he doesn't set it off. The jacket makes a torso or arm shot too risky, and the legs would not kill him. The quickest way to kill him was through the head.

I'd just like to make it clear that there was no appearance of a bomb. One eyewitness did claim to have seen a bomb belt with wires sticking out but nothing resembling this was recovered.

What is that? I said he appeared to have a bomb. That means, to the police officers, he appeared to have a bomb. Of course he didn't actually have a bomb. But if it appeared as if he had a bomb, and someone said he had a bomb belt, and there had just been 8 bomb attacks in London, I think it would be reasonable for law enforcement to err on the side of killing him.

What is that? I said he appeared to have a bomb. That means, to the police officers, he appeared to have a bomb. Of course he didn't actually have a bomb. But if it appeared as if he had a bomb, and someone said he had a bomb belt, and there had just been 8 bomb attacks in London, I think it would be reasonable for law enforcement to err on the side of killing him.

He was wearing a denim jacket in warm weather (17 C). That does not mean he had a bomb and the eye witness statement came after the shooting.
You also said that he "appeared to be wearing a bomb which was situated around the torso" (slight misquote probably) but the only basis you have for that is that the officers couldnt directly see the shape of his torso due to his wearing of a denim jacket

He was wearing a denim jacket in warm weather (17 C). That does not mean he had a bomb and the eye witness statement came after the shooting

I am not saying anything is definite! I can't say anything is definite, because he wasn't a suicide bomber. Try stepping into the shoes of those officers for once.

There had been 8 attempted bombings, 4 of the bombers are still on the loose, and this guy is running around with what might be a bomb to these officers into a subway.

It may not have been the correct decision now that we've seen the end result, but for those officers, and most likely for any other military or law enforcement agency in the western world, this would be a justifiable act.

Like I said, accidents happen. You shouldn't treat police officers as criminals when they try to do their job and screw up.

I'm not claiming the officers are criminals but I am saying that they did make mistakes which could easily have been avoided (even without 20/20 hindsight). It may not be the officers fault but the fault of the procedures they were taught to follow in that situation but there were some serious mistakes made if such a result can happen. The police need to review the procedure for such a situation so that this doesnt happen again but without lowering their guard against future suicide attacks. Its a hard task i'll grant you but one that needs to be addressed

Just thought I'd post this again for Heikoku, who is really getting on my nerves now.

I read the pointless drivel the first time. About me getting on yout nerves: Ooohhh, I'm shaking...

I think we're all forgetting here that an innocent man was killed. Rule of law states that this should be investigated and that the people that killed him should be punished. Unless you'd like it happening to people YOU know because of police finding out they can kill people unpunished, you'd better hope there's an investigation and punishment. I also know for a fact that if it happened to an American or a Brit, you'd all be looking for the heads of the policemen. What makes me different from you is I would be as repulsed by this blunder if it were an American as I am now.

I think we're all forgetting here that an innocent man was killed. Rule of law states that this should be investigated and that the people that killed him should be punished. Unless you'd like it happening to people YOU know because of police finding out they can kill people unpunished, you'd better hope there's an investigation and punishment. I also know for a fact that if it happened to an American or a Brit, you'd all be looking for the heads of the policemen. What makes me different from you is I would be as repulsed by this blunder if it were an American as I am now.

The officers in question are being investigated at the moment and the findings of the report will determine whether they are innocent or guilty. Cases like this have occured in the past and people have reacted in pretty much the same way as with this case (although they use different arguments for and against the actions taken obviously). Just because the man was innocent doesnt mean that the police should be punished based solely on that fact. Other factors need to be taken into consideration as these could have led to the police believing their choice to be the best course of action

The officers in question are being investigated at the moment and the findings of the report will determine whether they are innocent or guilty. Cases like this have occured in the past and people have reacted in pretty much the same way as with this case (although they use different arguments for and against the actions taken obviously). Just because the man was innocent doesnt mean that the police should be punished based solely on that fact. Other factors need to be taken into consideration as these could have led to the police believing their choice to be the best course of action

I don't mean necessarily jailing, but the guy losing his job and damage payments to the family at the very LEAST...

[QUOTE]Oye Oye:

The number of shots isn't important. The officers were clearly aiming for the head.

True, but already there seems to be an abundance of misinformation regarding the events. Just trying to get the facts straight.

You may not be impressed by the israelis, but they're the experts when it come to this sort of thing.

Not very effective experts when you consider the lack of progress they've made in establishing peace in the middle east.

I think the cop's actions were far less than professional.

If he really believed the guy was a suicide bomber, why tackle him to the ground first? That could have accidently triggered the device or allowed the victim time to trigger it. Tackle him to the ground and then fill the guy full of lead? No sir, that sounds like a gut reaction based on fear and uncertainty rather than a clear judgement made by a professional.

To justify the killing of someone with "but what if he WAS a suicide bomber?" is a slippery slope to cops summarily executing anyone who looks suspicious. At the very least, the cop should be fired, or made to go through firearms and protocol training all over again before he's allowed back on the street.

http://tinypic.com/9qcrqe.jpg

I think we're all forgetting here that an innocent man was killed. Rule of law states that this should be investigated and that the people that killed him should be punished. Unless you'd like it happening to people YOU know because of police finding out they can kill people unpunished, you'd better hope there's an investigation and punishment. I also know for a fact that if it happened to an American or a Brit, you'd all be looking for the heads of the policemen. What makes me different from you is I would be as repulsed by this blunder if it were an American as I am now.I agree with ChuChulainn. Nobody has 'forgotten' that this was an innocent man. That is the crux of the matter and it's something the police and the British Government are going to have to face up to. And, as has been pointed out, there will be a full and exhaustive inquiry, as there is after ANY police shooting. But we also shouldn't forget that there are very few police shootings in Britain. That's because firearms officers are extremely highly trained and are held to very high standards indeed. I have seen firearms officers bring a peaceful conclusion to situations where I know for certain I would have pulled the trigger. If this officer did not adhere to those standards then yes, he should be dealt with harshly. But again I would like to point out that we are not in a position to judge. We know only what we have seen on the news - and news invariably comes to us through filters.

Heikoku, you say that you're 'different' from us because you are 'repulsed' by this 'blunder'. But that's just you showing off. "Ooo, look at Heikoku, how compassionate, how moral, how wonderfully upstanding..." I think any civilised person is sorry that this poor man died in the way he did, but unlike you, most of us know that sitting around a forum moralising isn't going to answer any of the questions. Now unless you were there, and saw what happened, unless you could read the copper's mind or that of the victim (yes, I'll willingly call him that - though I don't necessarily call him the victim of the police officer), then you, like us, have only the news reports to go on. You, like us, don't know the full facts. Until you do, you're just lecturing us from a position of ignorance and prejudice.

I agree with ChuChulainn. Nobody has 'forgotten' that this was an innocent man. That is the crux of the matter and it's something the police and the British Government are going to have to face up to. And, as has been pointed out, there will be a full and exhaustive inquiry, as there is after ANY police shooting. But we also shouldn't forget that there are very few police shootings in Britain. That's because firearms officers are extremely highly trained and are held to very high standards indeed. I have seen firearms officers bring a peaceful conclusion to situations where I know for certain I would have pulled the trigger. If this officer did not adhere to those standards then yes, he should be dealt with harshly. But again I would like to point out that we are not in a position to judge. We know only what we have seen on the news - and news invariably comes to us through filters.

Heikoku, you say that you're 'different' from us because you are 'repulsed' by this 'blunder'. But that's just you showing off. "Ooo, look at Heikoku, how compassionate, how moral, how wonderfully upstanding..." I think any civilised person is sorry that this poor man died in the way he did, but unlike you, most of us know that sitting around a forum moralising isn't going to answer any of the questions. Now unless you were there, and saw what happened, unless you could read the copper's mind or that of the victim (yes, I'll willingly call him that - though I don't necessarily call him the victim of the police officer), then you, like us, have only the news reports to go on. You, like us, don't know the full facts. Until you do, you're just lecturing us from a position of ignorance and prejudice.

As opposed to justifying violence from a position of ignorance and prejudice?

I think the cop's actions were far less than professional.

If he really believed the guy was a suicide bomber, why tackle him to the ground first? That could have accidently triggered the device or allowed the victim time to trigger it. Tackle him to the ground and then fill the guy full of lead? No sir, that sounds like a gut reaction based on fear and uncertainty rather than a clear judgement made by a professional.

To justify the killing of someone with "but what if he WAS a suicide bomber?" is a slippery slope to cops summarily executing anyone who looks suspicious. At the very least, the cop should be fired, or made to go through firearms and protocol training all over again before he's allowed back on the street.

http://tinypic.com/9qcrqe.jpg
As a matter of course, armed police involved in a shooting have their guns taken away until the inquiry is completed. If they are found to have acted appropriately then they are allowed back on duty, if not then the relevant "punishments" are applied.

As for tackling the guy to the ground, from what I have read this does not appear to have been done by the same officer as the one who fired the gun, so maybe there should be separate discussions for each individual involved.

When the police are in that sort of situation, they don't really have much of a choice when there are perhaps hundereds of lives at stake. It's a split-second decision in a situation unlike any they have had to deal with before. The Met Police provide a very professional service, and it's not easy to be a policeman in these troubled times. Remember - they deal with hundereds of armed incidents a year all over London which save lives.

However, I don't think that the police should be judge, jury and executioner. Something went wrong, and we need to find out what, so we don't make these mistakes again. There should be an enquiry and the police involved should have their firearms suspended until it reaches a conclusion. Only when we reach a conclusion can we decide what further action (Punishments and police policy)we need to take.

As opposed to justifying violence from a position of ignorance and prejudice?Oh, please.

If I wanted to justify violence, then I'd be telling you all why I think the bombers were right to bomb. Hell's teeth, there are plenty of apologists and cowards looking for ways to appease these arseholes - I'm sure I could find an argument or two somewhere, if such arguments didn't make me so want to puke.

As it is I'm trying to explain why I think the police are right to police, and why we should appreciate that someone's willing to do so.

Unfortunately, the world isn't a nice, fluffy place where we can all sit down, hold hands and sing happy songs of peace and harmony. It'd be nice if it was. But sadly there are those who are bent on causing death and suffering, and those who are dedicated to trying to stop them. And like I've said before, we're lucky that there are those who ARE willing to stand up and actually DO something about it - rather than just sitting around loftily dispensing after-the-fact wisdom on some message board.

Yeah, sure - you know this guy was innocent. I know he was innocent. The officer involved now knows he was innocent. And like I said, there is an inquiry underway and that officer will be punished if it's decided he acted wrongly. And neither your opinion nor mine will have any bearing on that.

When we all live in your happy-clappy world where everyone's lovely and reasonable and all problems can be solved by getting together round the table and putting together a solution package then we'll no longer need people who're willing to front up and make decisions like this. This guy unfortunately made the wrong one, and an innocent man died as a result. And whatever the inquiry might decide, that officer is going to pay for that one way or the other.

Oh, please.

If I wanted to justify violence, then I'd be telling you all why I think the bombers were right to bomb. Hell's teeth, there are plenty of apologists and cowards looking for ways to appease these arseholes - I'm sure I could find an argument or two somewhere, if such arguments didn't make me so want to puke.

As it is I'm trying to explain why I think the police are right to police, and why we should appreciate that someone's willing to do so.

Unfortunately, the world isn't a nice, fluffy place where we can all sit down, hold hands and sing happy songs of peace and harmony. It'd be nice if it was. But sadly there are those who are bent on causing death and suffering, and those who are dedicated to trying to stop them. And like I've said before, we're lucky that there are those who ARE willing to stand up and actually DO something about it - rather than just sitting around loftily dispensing after-the-fact wisdom on some message board.

Yeah, sure - you know this guy was innocent. I know he was innocent. The officer involved now knows he was innocent. And like I said, there is an inquiry underway and that officer will be punished if it's decided he acted wrongly. And neither your opinion nor mine will have any bearing on that.

When we all live in your happy-clappy world where everyone's lovely and reasonable and all problems can be solved by getting together round the table and putting together a solution package then we'll no longer need people who're willing to front up and make decisions like this. This guy unfortunately made the wrong one, and an innocent man died as a result. And whatever the inquiry might decide, that officer is going to pay for that one way or the other.

It's almost funny to hear, as a reply to "they made a wrong decision that killed an innocent man", the sentence "yes, but thanks God they made A decision".

Almost.

Oh, please.

If I wanted to justify violence, then I'd be telling you all why I think the bombers were right to bomb. Hell's teeth, there are plenty of apologists and cowards looking for ways to appease these arseholes - I'm sure I could find an argument or two somewhere, if such arguments didn't make me so want to puke.

As it is I'm trying to explain why I think the police are right to police, and why we should appreciate that someone's willing to do so.

Unfortunately, the world isn't a nice, fluffy place where we can all sit down, hold hands and sing happy songs of peace and harmony. It'd be nice if it was. But sadly there are those who are bent on causing death and suffering, and those who are dedicated to trying to stop them. And like I've said before, we're lucky that there are those who ARE willing to stand up and actually DO something about it - rather than just sitting around loftily dispensing after-the-fact wisdom on some message board.

Yeah, sure - you know this guy was innocent. I know he was innocent. The officer involved now knows he was innocent. And like I said, there is an inquiry underway and that officer will be punished if it's decided he acted wrongly. And neither your opinion nor mine will have any bearing on that.

When we all live in your happy-clappy world where everyone's lovely and reasonable and all problems can be solved by getting together round the table and putting together a solution package then we'll no longer need people who're willing to front up and make decisions like this. This guy unfortunately made the wrong one, and an innocent man died as a result. And whatever the inquiry might decide, that officer is going to pay for that one way or the other.

Thank you for proving my point.

Thank you for proving my point.Ah yes - the old faithful.

Still - my pleasure, and likewise, I'm sure.

It's almost funny to hear, as a reply to "they made a wrong decision that killed an innocent man", the sentence "yes, but thanks God they made A decision".

Almost.It's almost funny to hear people sitting relaxing in front of their computers holding forth about what others, who are having to actually face the problems of the real world, should have done.

Almost.

As I've said to you before, when I've any reason to believe you've ever had to make a life or death decision, then I'll respect your opinion. Until then - until you've been in that situation - you can moralise and stroke your oh-so-superior ego all you like, but it'll continue to mean nothing.

The police -- it is not one, but five, mind you -- should NOT be tried for involuntary manslaughter.

They should be tried for premediatated (also known as "first degree") murder.

The fact that the initiator of the poll suggests only silly involuntary manslaughter shows that (s)he is siding with murderers.

Those police premeditated/planned to kill people who did not behave according to the police(wo)men's whim, and they did so -- five officers shooting the bullets into the head of a man lying on the ground, who had previously run away from them thinking that exactly they -- those police officers -- were terrorists, being in plain clothes and wielding guns.

As I've said to you before, when I've any reason to believe you've ever had to make a life or death decision, then I'll respect your opinion. Until then - until you've been in that situation - you can moralise and stroke your oh-so-superior ego all you like, but it'll continue to mean nothing.

Expanding that logic, wouldn't that more or less invalidate a significant majority of the opinions of people on NS, or for that fact anywhere in just about any argument?

The police -- it is not one, but five, mind you -- should NOT be tried for involuntary manslaughter.

They should be tried for premediatated (also known as "first degree") murder.

The fact that the initiator of the poll suggests only silly involuntary manslaughter shows that (s)he is siding with murderers.

Those police premeditated/planned to kill people who did not behave according to the police(wo)men's whim, and they did so -- five officers shooting the bullets into the head of a man lying on the ground, who had previously run away from them thinking that exactly they -- those police officers -- were terrorists, being in plain clothes and wielding guns.

Nicely balanced view. It's an honour to read postings from an eye witness.

It's almost funny to hear people sitting relaxing in front of their computers holding forth about what others, who are having to actually face the problems of the real world, should have done.

Almost.

As I've said to you before, when I've any reason to believe you've ever had to make a life or death decision, then I'll respect your opinion. Until then - until you've been in that situation - you can moralise and stroke your oh-so-superior ego all you like, but it'll continue to mean nothing.

Okay, "In-doubt-kill", tell me, have YOU ever made any such decisions? We're not talking about a medical malpractice case here, we're talking about a blunder that was obvious enough to anyone: If they had him pinned down for a while before firing, why didn't they bother to think "wait, he didn't explode yet, so it's quite likely he won't at all."?

http://tinypic.com/9qcrqe.jpg

I hope everybody has realized that this photo is fake.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/tubesign.asp

Freedom is THE most important element in any situation. I would rather know that no innocent man will be slain during the course of the day, even if it means having a higher risk of a successful terrorist attack.

As Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up their liberty in order to attain safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Besides, all police are criminal. A police officer is a person with the same attitude, temperament, morals, self-esteem, and world outlook as a member of a ruthless street gang, only with a more privileged up bringing.

Freedom is THE most important element in any situation. I would rather know that no innocent man will be slain during the course of the day, even if it means having a higher risk of a successful terrorist attack.

As Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up their liberty in order to attain safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Besides, all police are criminal. A police officer is a person with the same attitude, temperament, morals, self-esteem, and world outlook as a member of a ruthless street gang, only with a more privileged up bringing.

If you can't come up with something more sensible than that then don't bother. You're interrupting the grown ups.

Expanding that logic, wouldn't that more or less invalidate a significant majority of the opinions of people on NS, or for that fact anywhere in just about any argument?No, not really.

I have no problem with people discussing the incident.

What I find a tad obnoxious, though, is this pompous moralising.

"The police should have known this" or "should have done that"... All this after the fact, of course, when we have all the information at our disposal. And, as a result of us having that information, we're able to assess the situation in a way the officers at the time could not have done.

For what it's worth, I'm not actually saying that I think the officer is innocent or guilty. I'm saying that the officer, like all whose actions are called into question, should be judged by the legal system - not by the mob. Especially a mob who weren't there, who haven't heard the officer's account of the incident and his thoughts, who (I have no doubt, given the sentiments expressed thus far) would reject anything he had to say if they did, and who didn't have to face what must have been an extremely difficult situation. But this mewling about "should" and "must" is nothing more than ignorant, gutter-press tabloid judgementalism.

And yes, I realise that if we extend my argument here regarding 'due process' then I have to face up to the fact that the victim here was not afforded such process - but that is why we're having the inquiry, as we always do on the extremely rare occasions when the British police shoot someone.

*Walks into subway station naked, with my hands in the air*

I AM NOT A TERRORIST! PLEASE DO NOT SHOOT ME! THAT IS NOT A STICK OF DYNAMITE! JUST BECAUSE ITS RED AND LONG DOSEN'T MEAN ITS DYNA-

*Gets shot anyway.*

Its a no-win situation. We just need to stop using outdated subways anyway. You know why they were put underground? Bomb shelters baby...

The cold war is over, and now their deathtraps. Lets just start building above ground platforms with better security and nice wide open spaces, eh?

Okay, "In-doubt-kill", tell me, have YOU ever made any such decisions? We're not talking about a medical malpractice case here, we're talking about a blunder that was obvious enough to anyone: If they had him pinned down for a while before firing, why didn't they bother to think "wait, he didn't explode yet, so it's quite likely he won't at all."?I remind you again that *I* am not the one acting as judge, jury and executioner for this officer. And yes, I will take your response to that as read: "the officer acted as such for the victim". That is true. But as I said to the Non-Aligned States, that is why there is an inquiry. The inquiry is where the evidence will be heard, the matter will be investigated, and a decision will be reached.

In the meantime, all we can do is wait. And personally, when I have to wait for something, I prefer to wait, rather than speculate, elaborate, and even invent. That is, as I said, what the gutter press do - and it helps nothing.

You condemn the officer because you believe he just decided he was going to kill this random chap in the street. Your posts imply a belief that he had no reason to do what he did. That tells me that you do not know anything about the training that British armed police receive, which is probably more intensive and more stringent than any other police force on Earth. I wasn't there, so of course I can't judge what his reason for firing was - all I can tell you is that he had a reason. It's up to the inquiry - not us - to decide whether the reason was a good one or not. Until the result is made known, making kneejerk judgements and moralistic pronouncements does no-one any good. You stand there holding forth about what was 'obvious' and what was not - but I submit once again that you were not there, and remind you that eye-witness evidence is one of the most complicated and confusing kinds of evidence a legal system has to deal with. Did the officer shout a warning? Did he shout early enough? What did he say? How was he acting? Did he knock the man down? Did the man fall down? Was the man on the floor when he was shot? How long was he on the floor before the officer fired? How many times was he shot? How was he acting prior to this? Where had he run before the shooting? What was he carrying? Were electrical wires really visible under his coat? Was he wearing a heavy coat, or not? Had he jumped the turnstile? All of these aspects and more from people's statements will have to be analysed. And most of those people are frightened members of the public who, frankly, aren't used to having their police shoot people in the head in front of them. That's the point: this just doesn't happen in Britain - except now it has, and we've got to find out why.

It might suit you to believe that you know everything there is to know about the situation because you've seen it on the news. But if it was that easy we'd have no need for a judicial system at all. We'd just employ a few oracles like you to sit around dispensing truth, and we'd all be happy. The officer may be guilty, or he may be innocent. He may have acted negligently, or in good faith. We - that is to say, the players of NationStates - will never know for sure. But the inquiry will come to a decision at some stage, and that is the nearest we will get to an answer. And when we HAVE that answer, if the officer is judged to be guilty, then by all means go to town on him - I will be right there with you. But I will not join you until that inquiry is finished.

I remind you again that *I* am not the one acting as judge, jury and executioner for this officer. And yes, I will take your response to that as read: "the officer acted as such for the victim". That is true. But as I said to the Non-Aligned States, that is why there is an inquiry. The inquiry is where the evidence will be heard, the matter will be investigated, and a decision will be reached.

In the meantime, all we can do is wait. And personally, when I have to wait for something, I prefer to wait, rather than speculate, elaborate, and even invent. That is, as I said, what the gutter press do - and it helps nothing.

You condemn the officer because you believe he just decided he was going to kill this random chap in the street. Your posts imply a belief that he had no reason to do what he did. That tells me that you do not know anything about the training that British armed police receive, which is probably more intensive and more stringent than any other police force on Earth. I wasn't there, so of course I can't judge what his reason for firing was - all I can tell you is that he had a reason. It's up to the inquiry - not us - to decide whether the reason was a good one or not. Until the result is made known, making kneejerk judgements and moralistic pronouncements does no-one any good. You stand there holding forth about what was 'obvious' and what was not - but I submit once again that you were not there, and remind you that eye-witness evidence is one of the most complicated and confusing kinds of evidence a legal system has to deal with. Did the officer shout a warning? Did he shout early enough? What did he say? How was he acting? Did he knock the man down? Did the man fall down? Was the man on the floor when he was shot? How long was he on the floor before the officer fired? How many times was he shot? How was he acting prior to this? Where had he run before the shooting? What was he carrying? Were electrical wires really visible under his coat? Was he wearing a heavy coat, or not? Had he jumped the turnstile? All of these aspects and more from people's statements will have to be analysed. And most of those people are frightened members of the public who, frankly, aren't used to having their police shoot people in the head in front of them. That's the point: this just doesn't happen in Britain - except now it has, and we've got to find out why.

It might suit you to believe that you know everything there is to know about the situation because you've seen it on the news. But if it was that easy we'd have no need for a judicial system at all. We'd just employ a few oracles like you to sit around dispensing truth, and we'd all be happy. The officer may be guilty, or he may be innocent. He may have acted negligently, or in good faith. We - that is to say, the players of NationStates - will never know for sure. But the inquiry will come to a decision at some stage, and that is the nearest we will get to an answer. And when we HAVE that answer, if the officer is judged to be guilty, then by all means go to town on him - I will be right there with you. But I will not join you until that inquiry is finished.

I said earlier that I didn't necessarily think that the dumbass should be arrested. However, I don't know how it is in Britain, but, in here, taking someone's life wrongfully without malice is still manslaughter, and, even when there isn't imprisonment, there are fines, damages, etc. Arguing that he was wearing a coat in summer is shifting the blame, as well as arguing that he left a building that was sucpected of having a terrorist inside. Running from the police entitles the police to arrest someone, not to kill. A "shoot-to-kill" policy will result in more innocents being killed in precisely this way. Just like the terrorists want, a police state where everyone fears everyone.

1) 'I said earlier that I didn't necessarily think that the dumbass should be arrested'.

2) 'However, I don't know how it is in Britain,.'

1) Maybe you'll remember this when you need a 'dumbass' to help your ungrateful skin.

2) No, you don't.

1) Maybe you'll remember this when you need a 'dumbass' to help your ungrateful skin.

And I should be grateful for the fact that he killed an innocent that happened to be from my state because...? It's not enough to let a guy whose idiocy killed an innocent man get off the hook now, we should also thank him for a job well done? Come on, I'll give you a chance to rephrase that, for the sake of sportmanship.

2) No, you don't.

Do you? If you do you can tell me where there is such a thing in Britain as damage payment for manslaughter.

For what it's worth, I'm not actually saying that I think the officer is innocent or guilty. I'm saying that the officer, like all whose actions are called into question, should be judged by the legal system - not by the mob. Especially a mob who weren't there, who haven't heard the officer's account of the incident and his thoughts, who (I have no doubt, given the sentiments expressed thus far) would reject anything he had to say if they did, and who didn't have to face what must have been an extremely difficult situation. But this mewling about "should" and "must" is nothing more than ignorant, gutter-press tabloid judgementalism.

Fair enough, since this would also expand to cover those who argue that the officer who fired the shot should get a medal. So it falls under an investigative process with neither guilt nor innocence but rather the middle ground of a suspect in a case correct? One thing comes to mind however. Are the officers involved currently under suspension while the investigation is underway? I couldn't find out.

Fair enough, since this would also expand to cover those who argue that the officer who fired the shot should get a medal. So it falls under an investigative process with neither guilt nor innocence but rather the middle ground of a suspect in a case correct? One thing comes to mind however. Are the officers involved currently under suspension while the investigation is underway? I couldn't find out.

Yes, all firearms officers involved in a shooting are taken off active duties. The individual involved and his family have been sent overseas for a break.

Fair enough, since this would also expand to cover those who argue that the officer who fired the shot should get a medal. So it falls under an investigative process with neither guilt nor innocence but rather the middle ground of a suspect in a case correct?Absolutely. I'm a great believer in innocent until proven guilty - which is why this whole thing's such a tragedy, because the victim didn't get that. But now we have to find out WHY he didn't, and whether taking that away from him was justifiable or not under the circumstances. We know he wasn't guilty, so he was wrongly killed, that's a given - but the investigation needs to establish whether the officer was negligent, criminal, or merely made an honest mistake.

One thing comes to mind however. Are the officers involved currently under suspension while the investigation is underway? I couldn't find out.FAK's already got this one, but I'll answer for courtesy's sake and agree - yes, police officers who fire their weapons are ALWAYS suspended pending an investigation. It's not conventional to send them out of the country, I'll concede - but in the light of heightened community tensions, people's feelings running high and the tendency of the public to convict based solely on what they read in the papers (e.g. Heikoku here), it's as much for the safety of the officer and his family as anything else.

I said earlier that I didn't necessarily think that the dumbass should be arrested.Yet you cheerfully judge him a 'dumbass' without knowing the circumstances. That is my point. You are an armchair justice - but the only 'evidence' you have to enable you to pass sentence on this man is what you've seen in the media, and your interpretation thereof.

However, I don't know how it is in Britain, but, in here, taking someone's life wrongfully without malice is still manslaughterAnd so it is in Britain - however, the investigation may conclude that the officer was acting in good faith, in which case he would not be charged. If it concludes otherwise, then he may be subject to anything up to and including murder. The point is, the inquiry has not reached a decision yet, and until it does, there is no reason for us to.

Arguing that he was wearing a coat in summer is shifting the blameNo - it is one factor amongst many. It is a single piece of evidence that will have to be examined along with mountains more. It may have been a contributory factor to the decision the officer made, and the inquiry will have to decide whether or not that decision was the right one based on ALL the evidence. That we in this forum are hung up on these factors that have been so frequently mentioned in the news only shows that our knowledge of the situation is limited to what is in the paper and on the TV.

Running from the police entitles the police to arrest someone, not to kill.The police are duty-bound to shoot if they believe that by doing so they can save innocent lives. On this occasion the decision resulted in the death of an innocent. What the officer's reasons were for firing I do not know, and I would venture neither do you. Therefore I will leave judgement to those who are in possession of the facts.

A "shoot-to-kill" policy will result in more innocents being killed in precisely this way. Just like the terrorists want, a police state where everyone fears everyone.The media reporting of the so-called 'shoot to kill' policy is misleading, however, since police firearms officers have always, to my knowledge, operated on such a policy. As we've discussed previously, ARV and TFU crews do not 'shoot to wound'. If they shoot, they shoot to stop - and that means aiming for the central mass of the nervous system. More often than not this will kill the target. As I understand it the change in policy is that in cases where someone is suspected of being a suicide bomber, the preferred target area is now the head (to avoid hitting body-strapped explosives) - which will, of course, more often than not kill the target.

So before we "go off on one", we need to decide which of these two shoot-to-kill policies is preferable...

As far as Britain's police state is concerned, you're right - but this is a process that has been ongoing since 9/11. As Bush now feels confident to overrule the Senate and act without oversight (in the case of the new UN ambassador), so Blair now feels confident to pass legislation banning "justifying or glorifying terrorism". While I won't be sorry to see these pro-bomber idiots made to shut up, it does raise the question of how far the Government in our democratic country will be willing to go to control people's ability to express their views - all in the name of our security, of course. There is a fine line between justifiable restrictions on free speech, which I think this is, and unjust restrictions. I just hope we don't miss the line as we cross it.

And I should be grateful for the fact that he killed an innocent that happened to be from my state because...? It's not enough to let a guy whose idiocy killed an innocent man get off the hook now, we should also thank him for a job well done? Come on, I'll give you a chance to rephrase that, for the sake of sportmanship.



Do you? If you do you can tell me where there is such a thing in Britain as damage payment for manslaughter.

From your state? Brazil? Oh well, then you know all about the fair and careful use of police power don't you. It might be an excellent idea to send the blokes from Scotland Yard to your state to learn all about proper policing. Damage payment for manslaughter? Of course. Unlike Brazil, human life is prized here and in the highly rare likeleyhood of a member of the public dying accidentally at the hands of the police, compensation is paid. Though quite how a grieving relative is meant to be 'paid' is beyond me. Fortunately this kind of event is rarer here than almost anywhere else.

I like the way a Brazilian has the gall to complain about the British police.

The Brazilian police chief has just resigned because he was a torturer.

Brazilian police have just shot a union member 17 times for.............being a union member.

11 Police were recently arrested for forming a death squad.

Police like to erect road blocks in areas of Sao Paolo and demand money from motorists.

Menezes own family said they 'expect this sort of behavior' from Brazilian police.

The complaint is real and just, the British police are resonsible for the death of an innocent man. But for you to rant on about it is like listening to Hitler whining about the British locking up a Russian Jew.

From your state? Brazil? Oh well, then you know all about the fair and careful use of police power don't you. It might be an excellent idea to send the blokes from Scotland Yard to your state to learn all about proper policing. Damage payment for manslaughter? Of course. Unlike Brazil, human life is prized here and in the highly rare likeleyhood of a member of the public dying accidentally at the hands of the police, compensation is paid. Though quite how a grieving relative is meant to be 'paid' is beyond me. Fortunately this kind of event is rarer here than almost anywhere else.

I like the way a Brazilian has the gall to complain about the British police.

The Brazilian police chief has just resigned because he was a torturer.

Brazilian police have just shot a union member 17 times for.............being a union member.

11 Police were recently arrested for forming a death squad.

Police like to erect road blocks in areas of Sao Paolo and demand money from motorists.

Menezes own family said they 'expect this sort of behavior' from Brazilian police.

The complaint is real and just, the British police are resonsible for the death of an innocent man. But for you to rant on about it is like listening to Hitler whining about the British locking up a Russian Jew.

Oh, sure, now I, a pacifist, am to blame for the violent actions of the Brazilian police. I'm also glad to know you hold the British police in the same standards as the Brazilian one, so you're not a very demanding person. Third, in all of these cases, the officers involved were punished. Comparing me to Hitler was a low blow for someone that's acting as xenophobic as he was, especially since I'm not part of the Brazilian police. I never once accused you of being a murderer, and that's what you're accusing me of being when you put me in the same level as some of the corrupt officers here. I'm repulsed by what the police here does, but the issue is what happened in London, where, supposedly, police should be competent. What's your sorry excuse for a point now? That I shouldn't be talking because some officers in Brazil are incompetent? That's quite the opposite, I KNOW incompetence when I see it. However, your attempt to justify a murder through guilt-by-association tricks (because that's what you were doing when you compared me to Hitler) tells quite a lot about you. Einstein was German. He favored peace, a position which, at his time, wasn't taken in Germany. So you'd rather see his mouth shut because he was from the "wrong country to say anything about peace", now? Because that's where guilt by association will lead you. Now you'll either learn to argue without ad hominem or I'll keep on calling you on it.

Oh, sure, now I, a pacifist, am to blame for the violent actions of the Brazilian police. I'm also glad to know you hold the British police in the same standards as the Brazilian one, so you're not a very demanding person. Third, in all of these cases, the officers involved were punished. Comparing me to Hitler was a low blow for someone that's acting as xenophobic as he was, especially since I'm not part of the Brazilian police. I never once accused you of being a murderer, and that's what you're accusing me of being when you put me in the same level as some of the corrupt officers here. I'm repulsed by what the police here does, but the issue is what happened in London, where, supposedly, police should be competent. What's your sorry excuse for a point now? That I shouldn't be talking because some officers in Brazil are incompetent? That's quite the opposite, I KNOW incompetence when I see it. However, your attempt to justify a murder through guilt-by-association tricks (because that's what you were doing when you compared me to Hitler) tells quite a lot about you. Einstein was German. He favored peace, a position which, at his time, wasn't taken in Germany. So you'd rather see his mouth shut because he was from the "wrong country to say anything about peace", now? Because that's where guilt by association will lead you. Now you'll either learn to argue without ad hominem or I'll keep on calling you on it.


No, your tricks won't work with me. I accused you of having a collosal nerve, which you have, nothing else. You're doing what you're accusing me of doing, twisting. Let's stick to facts shall we?
'London, where, supposedly, police should be competent'
Tell you what, nominate a more competent and professional police force in any other major country.
'That I shouldn't be talking because some officers in Brazil are incompetent?'
Not at all, this place is for all to speak. My point, as you well know but insist in ignoring, is that it's rich for a Brazilian to criticise the British police for something the Brazilian police are world famous for. Oh, you're not a policeman? Nor am I, doesn't stop either of us having a point of view about the disasterous event and the police force here, and as the victim was a Brazilian and you, another Brazilian, are rabidly accusing one of the most professional and, yes decent, forces of brutatility, I have a perfect right to point out that the deceased had a far higher chance (nearly 100%) of being killed by his own nations police force than the one that he relied on for security in the country in which he was illegally living.
'IKNOW incompetence when I see it'
Are you an expert? Are we meant to believe you are especially aware of incompetence and we're not? Don't be so arrogant and superior.
'(because that's what you were doing when you compared me to Hitler)'
Wrong again, as anyone reading it can see. I compared your remarks with a stupid comment that someone like Hitler could make. The emphasis is on stupid.
Einstein was German. 'He favored peace, a position which, at his time, wasn't taken in Germany'
In 1901, long before the National Soacialists and even WW1, Einstein became a Swiss citizen and stayed Swiss. It somewhat undermines your point.
'Because that's where guilt by association will lead you.'
So I'm 'guilty' because I'm British? Menezes is guilty because he was an illegal alien? No-one's laying guilt by association, stop playing tricks. Your case has been trashed by me and a dozen others here. The fact that you haven't moved an iota displays your bias and unwillingness to accept argument.

So I'm 'guilty' because I'm British? Menezes is guilty because he was an illegal alien? No-one's laying guilt by association, stop playing tricks. Your case has been trashed by me and a dozen others here. The fact that you haven't moved an iota displays your bias and unwillingness to accept argument.

No, you imbecile, I'm pointing out that you seem to believe that you make anything of a point by saying the Brazilian police is incompetent and I'm showing you that guilt by association would lead you to discredit Einstein's position against violence based on the fact that he was born in a country that commited it at the time. But, if that's the game you want to play, so be it. Need I remind you of the fruitless search for WMDs your country started while killing thousands in Iraq? The fact that there are several accounts of British (yes, British) abuse? Your country has a history of attacking and killing innocents out of the blue, it seems. A recent one, indeed. What the UK did in Iraq isn't any different from what the UK policemen did to an innocent, the scale is different. So, I'll be glad to repay in kind the remark you made: "It's like Hitler saying that the jew killed in Germany was an isolated incident.".

No, you imbecile, I'm pointing out that you seem to believe that you make anything of a point by saying the Brazilian police is incompetent and I'm showing you that guilt by association would lead you to discredit Einstein's position against violence based on the fact that he was born in a country that commited it at the time. But, if that's the game you want to play, so be it. Need I remind you of the fruitless search for WMDs your country started while killing thousands in Iraq? The fact that there are several accounts of British (yes, British) abuse? Your country has a history of attacking and killing innocents out of the blue, it seems. A recent one, indeed. What the UK did in Iraq isn't any different from what the UK policemen did to an innocent, the scale is different. So, I'll be glad to repay in kind the remark you made: "It's like Hitler saying that the jew killed in Germany was an isolated incident.".

Imbecile? Quite touchy aren't we. Tell me, do you believe the Brazilian police are a competent and trustworthy bunch? Yes or no? Your point about Einstein is ridiculous no matter how many times you state it. You're the one who began blathering about 'guilt by association'. No you have no need to remind me of the illegal acts Britain is commiting simply by occupying Iraq, never mind the invasion itself. You're writhing on some point that only you seem to see by comparing the invasion and occupation of Iraq with the killing of an innocent man in London. If you want to start name calling instead of debate, please continue to call me an imbecile, it hurts me not one jot but does help me understand you.

Imbecile? Quite touchy aren't we. Tell me, do you believe the Brazilian police are a competent and trustworthy bunch? Yes or no? Your point about Einstein is ridiculous no matter how many times you state it. You're the one who began blathering about 'guilt by association'. No you have no need to remind me of the illegal acts Britain is commiting simply by occupying Iraq, never mind the invasion itself. You're writhing on some point that only you seem to see by comparing the invasion and occupation of Iraq with the killing of an innocent man in London. If you want to start name calling instead of debate, please continue to call me an imbecile, it hurts me not one jot but does help me understand you.

Oh, offended, now, are we? I never claimed the Brazilian police did a good job. However, it's not only not my fault, it serves as no reflection on me whatsoever. You are the one that tried to use this baseless connection. You compare me to Hitler and then get touchy when I insult you back? YOU started name-calling and YOU started trying to shut me up by saying that the Brazilian police is bad. So what if it is? We're discussing the London police. If I think the Brazilian police does bad work? Yes, very bad. Does it have any reflection on me as your baseless claims tried to state? No. So, if you rub it in my face that Brazilian police is bad, I'll rub it in your face that British military is worse. Neither has any reflection in the value of our claims, but if you wanna play THIS game, I'll win.

Oh, offended, now, are we? I never claimed the Brazilian police did a good job. However, it's not only not my fault, it serves as no reflection on me whatsoever. You are the one that tried to use this baseless connection. You compare me to Hitler and then get touchy when I insult you back? YOU started name-calling and YOU started trying to shut me up by saying that the Brazilian police is bad. So what if it is? We're discussing the London police. If I think the Brazilian police does bad work? Yes, very bad. Does it have any reflection on me as your baseless claims tried to state? No. So, if you rub it in my face that Brazilian police is bad, I'll rub it in your face that British military is worse. Neither has any reflection in the value of our claims, but if you wanna play THIS game, I'll win.

You should really calm down love. I'm not offended, why do you think that? Listen, take a breath and re-read, you'll find that I didn't compare you to Hitler, I compared your silly rants to what he might say. Can you grasp that? Yes? Good, let's move on.
You won't 'win' any game, 'cos the game is only in your over-active mind.
See if you can grasp this:
1) I don't condone the killing of an innocent person by the police anywhere in Britain, it just doesn't happen, or so we thought, and now that it has, I and all Brits want an acount and justice.
2) It comes as no surprise that the people most shocked and alarmed at the killing (apart from his friends and relatives) would be his countrymen. That is natural.
3) It does come as a surprise when a Brazilian, whose police are amongst the most corrupt and violent in the world, makes post after uninformed post, attacking the mostly unarmed British police whose record is second to none. None.
4) The only offence I take is that said Brazilian froths at the mouth as if it were his filthy police force in question and doesn't wait for the full facts and results of an investigation.
You insist on judging events by standards prevelant in Brazil. There will be no sweeping of this case under the carpet, it will be investigated by British standards, possibly you cannot grasp what that means.
Please at least try and refrain from the ridiculous, like dragging the Iraqi adventure into the discussion. Perhaps you'd like to discuss 21 years of murderous military rule. Or the Brazilian butchery in the south-east Amazon and the governments desire for ethnic cleansing. There are numerous instances of Brazilian barbarity, don't lecture me about Britain lest you want chapter and verse on your squalid little country. Stick to the subject for your own sake.

Stick to the subject for your own sake.

An advice you yourself could follow. I know history, and never made any defense whatsoever of what policemen or the military (which I don't even regard as actual people - not the Brazilian military, nor any other) do. However, if we will point out each country's wrongdoings, I'd be glad to mention about three hundred years of imperialism and colonialism in Africa, religious prosecution, etc. YOU started getting off-topic when you tried to shut me up by bringing up the fact that police is incompetent here. I didn't say your whole police is incompetent either, but I AM saying that the guys that killed an innocent man are. By Brazilian standards, they'd be the subjects of an investigation just like in England. But do you actually say that there's any doubt that an innocent was wrongfully killed by the officers that held him pinned to the ground and executed him? If they were just following orders, then someone higher up is to blame for incompetence. The buck stops somewhere. You should hope so, lest the same police does the same thing to you or someone you know.

Those police premeditated/planned to kill people who did not behave according to the police(wo)men's whim, and they did so -- five officers shooting the bullets into the head of a man lying on the ground, who had previously run away from them thinking that exactly they -- those police officers -- were terrorists, being in plain clothes and wielding guns.

Premeditated/planned? By all accounts, their plan, after extensive behind-the-scenes consultation whilst merely tracking the suspect, was to apprehend them, or at least question them. Then he runs. They did not plan the run. He did not plan his run. He ran. They chased and one made the instantaneous decision we are discussing. Made a decision according to policy and training, but did not himself say "I'll be shooting this guy in five minutes".

And I don't recall the modus operandi of terrorists to be wandering around in civvies, brandishing guns and targetting individuals. Maybe similar things are done by militias or the like, but not in the UK. Maybe the worst (utter worst) of UK gang violence might produce similar, but the target of their affections would be targetted through gang involvement, not random. And all that is without supposing that they did (as I trust and believe, though allow can be wrong about) announce their 'Policeness'...

Freedom is THE most important element in any situation. I would rather know that no innocent man will be slain during the course of the day, even if it means having a higher risk of a successful terrorist attack.

As Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up their liberty in order to attain safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Besides, all police are criminal. A police officer is a person with the same attitude, temperament, morals, self-esteem, and world outlook as a member of a ruthless street gang, only with a more privileged up bringing.Freedom from fear is the most important thing for me. This means (in the context of the discussion) that I trust that the authorities do what they can to curtail terrorist outrages. If terrorist attacks go unopposed (for fear of the occasional accident) then we will have more terrorist attacks.

(As an extension, and an aside (and despite my opinions on the initiation of the Iraqi siuation) we cannot allow terrorist outrages to drive us to abandoning our aims for safe and satisfactory conclusion to the Iraqi situation (it's started, so it has to finish somehow) or else an outrage will be used every time someone isn't happy at last night's Lottery numbers... Yes, I exagerate, but not much.)

To that end, I'm willing to put up with the miniscule possibility of being wrongly targetted to gain freedom from higher chance of being a victim and excercise my right to take to the tube (and other even walk outside) despite the even higher chance of being killed in a random accident of 'ordinary' nature...

[Edit: And how come police are 'from more privilidged up-bringings'? That so does not relate to the reality.]

Something I posted in another thread, with the same topic:

There is something a bunch of you arent realizing. Lets go through this in a timeline way.

-The cops identify themselves to whom they believe to be a suicide bomber. The bomber is not in a crowded area at this point, or so it seems to be(He bypassed the ticket area after this, I figure it wasnt too crowded around this area). The cops decide not to fire.

-The suspected bomber is running from the cops. If he is a terrorist bomber, it is likely he is running to a more crowded area. Yet instead of shooting him there, the cops dont, despite the fact that it could save many people before the bomber could reach a more populated area.

-Still running. The cops decide to try to tackle him. The suspect has now run into a heavily populated area(or as far as I can tell at least, hence why people are saying they couldnt incapacitate him, for fear of killing a number of people).

-The cops tackle him. The suspect has not blown himself up yet, but just to make sure he doesnt, they shoot him in the head. Seven times. And once in the shoulder.

Now, unless I missed anything big, there does seem to be a problem. This man was already surrounded by many people. If he was a suicide bomber, being chased by cops, and there were a sizeable number of people around him, wouldn't he set off his bomb? What about as they were tackling him? If his bomb had a trigger able to be set off, after being tackled, wouldnt he have set it off the moment they got their hands on him?

But no. Despite the fact that he was in a crowded area, supposedly with a bomb, he didn't set it off. He didnt set it off for the supposed minutes he was running. And yet, after he was tackled, with three people pinning him down, the cops felt it nessecary to shoot him seven times in the head.

I can understand their position. They were nervous. They had who they felt was a suicide bomber, running away from them after they called out for him to stop. He is wearing a large jacket, and runs into the tube. There had been bombings recently. I can understand that they werent sure, and in pursuit of the man, they may not have been thinking about whether or not he really was a bomber.

We do have hindsight. But as trained professionals, they should have looking at this from another perspective. He's running toward a crowd, you dont shoot him before he gets there? He doesnt blow up when he gets there, and you decide to kill him five times over, after tackling him?

Multiple people are at fault here. The man who ran is at fault, for running. But that doesnt warrant being shot. Certainly not seven times, in the head.

The cops are an obvious target here, but how much at fault are they at? If their intelligence had told them that this was a suicide bomber, and they had to stop him, their actions could be understandable. The intelligence in this case is faulty.

However, if they had only been told that he was a suspected suicide bomber, without concrete proof, then they should have been observant enough to realize there was doubt to his being a bomber.

So where do we lay blame? Its hard to say. Its an isolated incident. If the cops were told that this was a suicide bomber and must be stopped, the intelligence and higher-ups need to be condemned, and looked upon. If the cops were aware of the situation, however, then they need to have some sort of slight reprimand(not highly publicized), maybe a small fine, with the money going to the family.

We dont want it to look like the police can't do their job, without second guessing themselves. It seems most likely that the intelligence was faulty. However, we must show that this cant happen again, that we wont accept it, and if things like this keep happening, more harsh punishments will be done to those responsible.

An advice you yourself could follow. I know history, and never made any defense whatsoever of what policemen or the military (which I don't even regard as actual people - not the Brazilian military, nor any other) do. However, if we will point out each country's wrongdoings, I'd be glad to mention about three hundred years of imperialism and colonialism in Africa, religious prosecution, etc. YOU started getting off-topic when you tried to shut me up by bringing up the fact that police is incompetent here. I didn't say your whole police is incompetent either, but I AM saying that the guys that killed an innocent man are. By Brazilian standards, they'd be the subjects of an investigation just like in England. But do you actually say that there's any doubt that an innocent was wrongfully killed by the officers that held him pinned to the ground and executed him? If they were just following orders, then someone higher up is to blame for incompetence. The buck stops somewhere. You should hope so, lest the same police does the same thing to you or someone you know.

'I know history, and never made any defense whatsoever of what policemen or the military (which I don't even regard as actual people - not the Brazilian military, nor any other) do.'
I'm struggling to understand this, I assume English is not your first language so please bear with me. I don't know what you mean by the military or 'any other' not being people.
'However, if we will point out each country's wrongdoings, I'd be glad to mention about three hundred years of imperialism and colonialism in Africa, religious prosecution, etc.'
I mean, this is just plain silly. Your country is the product of one of histories most brutal imperialist nations. Ask the Indians of Brazil about religious persecution. Come on, get real. As you're an eminent historian (see above) I shouldn't have to point this out.
'I didn't say your whole police is incompetent either, but I AM saying that the guys that killed an innocent man are.'
Well exactly. That's the whole point. You have taken it upon yourself to be judge, jury and executioner. You'll note that most people are willing to wait and see.
'By Brazilian standards, they'd be the subjects of an investigation just like in England.'
You really believe that do you? here's an quote from The Human Rights Watch:
'The police, ordinarily responsible for the initial inquiries into their own crimes, rarely investigate police killings with diligence. Once transferred to prosecutors, these poorly documented cases are almost never given priority. When presented with indictments, Brazilian courts, particularly those in the military justice system, fail to fulfill their legal obligation to convict and sentence violent police. Bias against criminal suspects is nearly as pervasive in the courts as on police forces and in society at large. As one judge wrote in acquitting police officers charged with torturing several detainees and abducting another, "These so-called human rights exist only to protect criminals from the law, when in truth they should exist to protect the honest citizen from the actions of crooks."'
'But do you actually say that there's any doubt that an innocent was wrongfully killed by the officers that held him pinned to the ground and executed him?'
Do you actually ever read what anyone else posts?
Fact: He was not a terrorist.
Fact: The police, at the moment of contact, had strong reason to believe he was.
Fact: They were completely wrong.
Fact: An innocent man has been killed by the agents of the state.
Fact: An enquiry will determine whether they had good reason to assume his immediate danger to other members of the public.
Fact: The enquiry will also determine if the officer(s) acted correctly in the given circumstances.
'If they were just following orders, then someone higher up is to blame for incompetence'
Just repeating this little mantra doesn't make it right. If there was incompetence, an enquiry will determine it. One does not judge incompetence with hindsight, one has to consider the prevailing circumstances. Hindsight does not a truth make.
'You should hope so, lest the same police does the same thing to you or someone you know'
Again, you're taking your Brazilian attitude to judge things here. The chances of me being shot by the police here are more than 60 million to one.

Something I posted in another thread, with the same topic:

There is something a bunch of you arent realizing. .

-The cops identify themselves to whom they believe to be a suicide bomber. The bomber is not in a crowded area at this point, or so it seems to be(He bypassed the ticket area after this, I figure it wasnt too crowded around this area). The cops decide not to fire.

-The suspected bomber is running from the cops. If he is a terrorist bomber, it is likely he is running to a more crowded area. Yet instead of shooting him there, the cops dont, despite the fact that it could save many people before the bomber could reach a more populated area.

-Still running. The cops decide to try to tackle him. The suspect has now run into a heavily populated area(or as far as I can tell at least, hence why people are saying they couldnt incapacitate him, for fear of killing a number of people).

-The cops tackle him. The suspect has not blown himself up yet, but just to make sure he doesnt, they shoot him in the head. Seven times. And once in the shoulder.

Now, unless I missed anything big, there does seem to be a problem. This man was already surrounded by many people. If he was a suicide bomber, being chased by cops, and there were a sizeable number of people around him, wouldn't he set off his bomb? What about as they were tackling him? If his bomb had a trigger able to be set off, after being tackled, wouldnt he have set it off the moment they got their hands on him?

But no. Despite the fact that he was in a crowded area, supposedly with a bomb, he didn't set it off. He didnt set it off for the supposed minutes he was running. And yet, after he was tackled, with three people pinning him down, the cops felt it nessecary to shoot him seven times in the head.

I can understand their position. They were nervous. They had who they felt was a suicide bomber, running away from them after they called out for him to stop. He is wearing a large jacket, and runs into the tube. There had been bombings recently. I can understand that they werent sure, and in pursuit of the man, they may not have been thinking about whether or not he really was a bomber.

We do have hindsight. But as trained professionals, they should have looking at this from another perspective. He's running toward a crowd, you dont shoot him before he gets there? He doesnt blow up when he gets there, and you decide to kill him five times over, after tackling him?

Multiple people are at fault here. The man who ran is at fault, for running. But that doesnt warrant being shot. Certainly not seven times, in the head.

The cops are an obvious target here, but how much at fault are they at? If their intelligence had told them that this was a suicide bomber, and they had to stop him, their actions could be understandable. The intelligence in this case is faulty.

However, if they had only been told that he was a suspected suicide bomber, without concrete proof, then they should have been observant enough to realize there was doubt to his being a bomber.

So where do we lay blame? Its hard to say. Its an isolated incident. If the cops were told that this was a suicide bomber and must be stopped, the intelligence and higher-ups need to be condemned, and looked upon. If the cops were aware of the situation, however, then they need to have some sort of slight reprimand(not highly publicized), maybe a small fine, with the money going to the family.

We dont want it to look like the police can't do their job, without second guessing themselves. It seems most likely that the intelligence was faulty. However, we must show that this cant happen again, that we wont accept it, and if things like this keep happening, more harsh punishments will be done to those responsible.

-'The cops identify themselves to whom they believe to be a suicide bomber. The bomber is not in a crowded area at this point, or so it seems to be(He bypassed the ticket area after this, I figure it wasnt too crowded around this area). The cops decide not to fire'.
The police here do not fire on the public, most of them carry no firearms. They did not believe anything of the sort. At this moment, he was a suspected bomber.

-'The suspected bomber is running from the cops. If he is a terrorist bomber, it is likely he is running to a more crowded area. Yet instead of shooting him there, the cops dont, despite the fact that it could save many people before the bomber could reach a more populated area.'
Not being an armed (mostly) force, the British sought and received advice from the experts: Israeli police and defence. They were given one sacred tenet; shooting a potential bomber anywhere but the head (and lethally) can 1) cause the possible explosives to detonate and/or 2) cause the bomber to self detonate before being killed.

-'The cops tackle him. The suspect has not blown himself up yet, but just to make sure he doesnt, they shoot him in the head. Seven times. And once in the shoulder'.
The shot in the shoulder is irrelevent. Now see immediately above as to why they shot him in the head. The Israelis insisted that the possible bomber must be repeatedly shot until he or she stops moving. Contrary to popular belief, it can take several discharges into the skull before movement ceases.

'But no. Despite the fact that he was in a crowded area, supposedly with a bomb, he didn't set it off. He didnt set it off for the supposed minutes he was running. And yet, after he was tackled, with three people pinning him down, the cops felt it nessecary to shoot him seven times in the head.'
And you, charged with stopping another suicide bomb going off would have acted more cooly? Take the Israeli and US police, do you think they would have behaved any differently? How wonderful it must be to be so sure of ones own superiority to those actually doing the job.
'Multiple people are at fault here. The man who ran is at fault, for running. But that doesnt warrant being shot. Certainly not seven times, in the head'
I dissagree. People like you seem to forget that the only people with blame on their hands are the terrorists.
'If their intelligence had told them that this was a suicide bomber, and they had to stop him, their actions could be understandable. The intelligence in this case is faulty.'
There was no intelligence here (pause for pun sniggers). The police were reacting to an unfolding situation. Assuming this was in any way foreseen is what leads you to an erroneous question in the first place. But of course, you are completely right to say we must examine this case and do whatever possible to stop it happening again. The police don't shoot people on the street here, nor anywhere else, unless someone is already brandishing a firearm and I for one hate it that the first such case is of an innocent man.


.

-'The cops identify themselves to whom they believe to be a suicide bomber. The bomber is not in a crowded area at this point, or so it seems to be(He bypassed the ticket area after this, I figure it wasnt too crowded around this area). The cops decide not to fire'.
The police here do not fire on the public, most of them carry no firearms. They did not believe anything of the sort. At this moment, he was a suspected bomber.

-'The suspected bomber is running from the cops. If he is a terrorist bomber, it is likely he is running to a more crowded area. Yet instead of shooting him there, the cops dont, despite the fact that it could save many people before the bomber could reach a more populated area.'
Not being an armed (mostly) force, the British sought and received advice from the experts: Israeli police and defence. They were given one sacred tenet; shooting a potential bomber anywhere but the head (and lethally) can 1) cause the possible explosives to detonate and/or 2) cause the bomber to self detonate before being killed.

-'The cops tackle him. The suspect has not blown himself up yet, but just to make sure he doesnt, they shoot him in the head. Seven times. And once in the shoulder'.
The shot in the shoulder is irrelevent. Now see immediately above as to why they shot him in the head. The Israelis insisted that the possible bomber must be repeatedly shot until he or she stops moving. Contrary to popular belief, it can take several discharges into the skull before movement ceases.

'But no. Despite the fact that he was in a crowded area, supposedly with a bomb, he didn't set it off. He didnt set it off for the supposed minutes he was running. And yet, after he was tackled, with three people pinning him down, the cops felt it nessecary to shoot him seven times in the head.'
And you, charged with stopping another suicide bomb going off would have acted more cooly? Take the Israeli and US police, do you think they would have behaved any differently? How wonderful it must be to be so sure of ones own superiority to those actually doing the job.
'Multiple people are at fault here. The man who ran is at fault, for running. But that doesnt warrant being shot. Certainly not seven times, in the head'
I dissagree. People like you seem to forget that the only people with blame on their hands are the terrorists.
'If their intelligence had told them that this was a suicide bomber, and they had to stop him, their actions could be understandable. The intelligence in this case is faulty.'
There was no intelligence here (pause for pun sniggers). The police were reacting to an unfolding situation. Assuming this was in any way foreseen is what leads you to an erroneous question in the first place. But of course, you are completely right to say we must examine this case and do whatever possible to stop it happening again. The police don't shoot people on the street here, nor anywhere else, unless someone is already brandishing a firearm and I for one hate it that the first such case is of an innocent man.
.

They obviously got bad advice. Israeli terrorism problems and those of England are similar. However they are different in degrees. Israeli has daily attacks from various militant Palestinian groups. This is the second Infatada uprising in Israel.

For the British the initial terrorist attacks were the worst casualties on home soil since WWII.

The degrees of difference there are so great. Unfortunately it seems these police officers, who are probably good men, took to the Israeli IDF mindset.

I'm surely not going to condone the act of murder in the name of fear. It seems all this guy ever did wrong was run and have brown skin.

They obviously got bad advice. Israeli terrorism problems and those of England are similar. However they are different in degrees. Israeli has daily attacks from various militant Palestinian groups. This is the second Infatada uprising in Israel.

For the British the initial terrorist attacks were the worst casualties on home soil since WWII.

The degrees of difference there are so great. Unfortunately it seems these police officers, who are probably good men, took to the Israeli IDF mindset.

I'm surely not going to condone the act of murder in the name of fear. It seems all this guy ever did wrong was run and have brown skin.

You may be entirely right that the Israeli advice was unsound.
The man was not 'brown', he was white.

You may be entirely right that the Israeli advice was unsound.
The man was not 'brown', he was white.

I think he looks like a pale Palestinian. I'm not from Europe. I don't know what Portuguese descendants would look like.

This poor sod was killed in error and was innocent of any serious crime. I am tired of reading that he was 'picked on' because he 'wasn't white'. Please, by all means discuss the rights and wrongs of the facts but try and bring this down to a 'racial' killing is wrong and stupid.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050725/images/25brazil1.jpg
Not a man of 'colour'.

By Brazilian standards, they'd be the subjects of an investigation just like in EnglandAs far as I'm aware, this standard extends to the whole of Britain.

But you're not looking for an investigation, though, are you? You've got this whole thing decided, signed and sealed already. You know this officer is guilty. You know he's - what was it? - a 'dumbass'.

Don't lecture on applying 'standards' unless you're willing to adhere to them. You've judged this man before you've heard the results of any investigation.

Chasing a guy in a heavy coat leaving a suspects house who wouldn't stop when told to and ran onto a tube where 4 suicide bombers had just blown themselves up... if I was a cop I know what I would have done: PYOW PYOW!

Pretty gutsy tackling him in the first place.

Besides, all police are criminal. A police officer is a person with the same attitude, temperament, morals, self-esteem, and world outlook as a member of a ruthless street gang, only with a more privileged up bringing.Speaking as far as Britain is concerned: What utter claptrap. On what evidence do you base this bigoted, stereotyped rubbish? You might make this claim for the corrupt so-called 'police' forces in certain other countries, but if you are trying to smear British or American officers in this way then you need to re-educate yourself.

Britain has only a relatively small number of people who are involved in 'ruthless street gangs' in any case; our police are governed strictly by a complex and comprehensive disciplinary system; we have anti-corruption units working to root out those few who are on the take; and they are subject to oversight from an independent investigatory authority which checks out complaints and is empowered to take action if a complaint is upheld. As for their 'more privileged upbringing', the police in Britain is by far one of the most inclusive organisations in the country. It accepts recruits from all communities, without exception, who are of good character, regardless of background or educational standards.

As I said, I have known many officers in my own and other forces. With very few exceptions, they are all people into whose hands I would willingly place my life or trust with the lives of those dear to me. There are some, for sure, who are mere 'uniform-carriers'; some who get a kick out of the authority that comes with the office; some who are simply inept - but by and large these are identified fairly quickly and removed.

Now you might argue that because of my association with the service, I am biased in what I say. And I would agree. My bias is based on the fact that I know what I am talking about whereas I believe you are speaking without real knowledge but only with "everyone knows" hearsay. However, I realise I may be wrong, which is why I ask you to provide evidence to support your prejudice please.

Here are a couple stories on it:
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050723/w072350.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm

He was at a building that was being investigated, wearing a thick coat in July, and then got on one of the London subways that was previously bombed. Ununiformed, undercover police pulled a gun on him (probably without identifying themselves), he ran, they yelled for him to stop, then they tackled him and shot him dead with a handgun.

This is total incompetence. If they don't charge the officers involved, or at least the officer that shot him, with involuntary manslaughter, then they may as well spit on his grave.

Legally, this is involuntary manslaughter. Because it wasn't intended, but if they had merely said, "POLICE!" (which I doubt they said) then this tragedy could've been prevented. Or if they had not used lethal force, until it was absolutely necessary. I'm not well-versed in the British criminal justice system, but I highly doubt that they are allowed to shoot people before being certain that they are a lethal threat.

Im so glad everyone said NO - He is risking his life trying to protect this funky little Island from idiots, and the guy ran and didn't stop I would of done the exact same given the circumstances !!

They WEREN'T in uniform, they probably DIDN'T identify themselves.

If two guys pulled a gun on you, WTF would be YOUR first reaction?

"Aye, mates, care for a cup of tea?"

unless he had been living in a cave for the previous week then he should have realised that obviously there would be extra security procedures, including plain clothed police, and there are certain things you don't do on a london subway

the whole incident was stupid, but take it from the police point of view, you tell a guy in a large trenchcoat to stop, he doesn't, jumps a barrier and runs for a subway train, as if the previous week didn't even happen

They obviously got bad advice. Israeli terrorism problems and those of England are similar.Whether they got bad advice or not I just don't know. But I think it's worth mentioning that, while you compare Israeli and British(*) terrorist problems, you disregard the fact that prior to 07 July, there was no comparison. Don't get the idea that Britain is new to terrorism. The British police are amongst the most experienced in the world when it comes to terrorism of the type employed by groups such as the IRA. The "set the bomb and run" routine.

Only now do we merit comparison with Israel. The incident in July was the first suicide bombing Britain had ever experienced, and it requires an entirely different approach than our police were used to.

(*) England is a component state of Britain. And while the July bombings did indeed take place in England, it is generally accepted that it is Britain that was the target, and Britain that is having to face this threat.

I'm surely not going to condone the act of murder in the name of fear. It seems all this guy ever did wrong was run and have brown skin.Disregarding the stupidity of the 'brown skin' comment, as it's already been dealt with, I'd point out that this 'murder' (another one who's not willing to allow for the inquiry process before making his oh-so-well-informed judgement) WAS based on fear. ALL police shootings are based on fear: the fear that the target will kill innocents if he is allowed to continue. Every time a firearms unit is deployed to an incident that fear exists - it is a testament to the ability of the police to use that fear constructively, and to keep it under measured control, that there are so few police killings here.

An anecdote, provided as an illustration: This was an incident from some years ago, wherein two young males had returned to the home of one of them from a night out. They were extremely drunk. One was in possession of something called an 'Airsoft' gun. Airsoft is a game a little like paintballing - the 'weapons' fire little yellow plastic pellets, which can bruise but are only of limited danger (eyes, etc). Airsoft guns, however, are exceedingly realistic: the right shape, design, weight - and most even strip down in much the same way as the 'real thing'. In other words, they are indistinguishable by sight.

Concerned neighbours understandably reported the youths, who were fooling around in the front garden with this gun. An armed response unit duly arrived and surrounded the youths. Much shouting was done along the lines of "armed police, drop the weapon". This continued for some minutes - far longer than I would have given the lad. Then, in his drunken foolishness, the young man finally raised the gun and pointed it at the lead officer.

What happened next? You can guess, can't you? After all, officers have to be allowed to act to protect their own lives, as well as the public's. They couldn't have known that this gun wasn't real. It looked precisely the same as the real thing. It was understandable that they thought it was a real one.

So they acted in the way their thorough training had taught them to:

They didn't fire. Even then, with a firearm - as real as it looked - pointed STRAIGHT AT THEM, they didn't fire. And eventually, as the gravity of his situation soaked through the youth's drink-addled brain, he put the gun down and was arrested.

THAT is how firearms officers in Britain deal with fear: they do their job. I don't think any firearms officer would ever say they don't fear. If they don't fear, they're in the wrong job. They fear being shot, they fear having to shoot. They fear getting it wrong. But they USE the fear. It's a guide. An indicator. If these officers in London fired, they made the decision to fire for a reason. The reason was wrong, as we now know. They are now facing the firearms officer's greatest fear: they've killed a innocent. And it's up to the inquiry to find out why.

I'm not well-versed in the British criminal justice system, but I highly doubt that they are allowed to shoot people before being certain that they are a lethal threat.It's quite noticeable just how many people are willing to declaim and denounce on this WITHOUT being 'well-versed in the British criminal justice system'...

[QUOTE=President Shrub]Yes, but he was a Brazilian citizen that was in Britain legally.[The BBC and other reports said that he had entered the country on a student visa which expired in 2003.

Just adding my two cents here. Now the prevailing thought or facts are that the police tackled this man, and /then/ shot him, correct?

Now... just look at that right there. They neutrilized him as a threat when they tackled him. Can someone explain to me what the point of shooting him /two times or more/ would have been?

Theres acceptible use of lethal force out there. Hell, a brandished knife is one. But this is a guy in an overcoat, who may have been afraid of heavy-handed police matters in the first place... unless I'm missing something big in protocol, lethal force was not justified here, in my humblest opionion.

And... you folks who are saying stuff like, "I know what I would have done: Pyow Pyow."... your saying that given the circumstances, you'd shoot an innocent man /because he looked a little funny in a strange climate/.

EDIT: And if he was in the country on an expired student visa, I wonder if the police had a chance to do a full background check on the guy? My guess is probably not.

*shakes his head for the state of humanity*

Just adding my two cents here. Now the prevailing thought or facts are that the police tackled this man, and /then/ shot him, correct?

Now... just look at that right there. They neutrilized him as a threat when they tackled him. Can someone explain to me what the point of shooting him /two times or more/ would have been?

Theres acceptible use of lethal force out there. Hell, a brandished knife is one. But this is a guy in an overcoat, who may have been afraid of heavy-handed police matters in the first place... unless I'm missing something big in protocol, lethal force was not justified here, in my humblest opionion.

And... you folks who are saying stuff like, "I know what I would have done: Pyow Pyow."... your saying that given the circumstances, you'd shoot an innocent man /because he looked a little funny in a strange climate/.

EDIT: And if he was in the country on an expired student visa, I wonder if the police had a chance to do a full background check on the guy? My guess is probably not.

*shakes his head for the state of humanity*


I suggest you read the preceeding posts before you offer your 2 cents worth. That way you won't seem so stupid.

Debating this topic without all the facts is fairly fruitless IMHO- for me it all depends on whether the Brazilian man was informed that the men telling him to stop were police, whether before they chased him or once they tackled him. If they didn't then the officer should be fired and possibly tried for manslughter.

If they did then the officer was doing his job and the guy was an idiot to run from the police. Still the officer should be demoted, I mean 7 times in the head is a bit too trigger happy for my liking.

(I'm presuming the Brazilian understood english - I mean he was working over there for three years)

What I'm wondering is when these facts are going to come out? PS for all Londoners, what's it like there now? Has it calmed down a bit or are people still quite tense?

It's almost funny to hear people sitting relaxing in front of their computers holding forth about what others, who are having to actually face the problems of the real world, should have done.

Almost.

As I've said to you before, when I've any reason to believe you've ever had to make a life or death decision, then I'll respect your opinion. Until then - until you've been in that situation - you can moralise and stroke your oh-so-superior ego all you like, but it'll continue to mean nothing.

You are assuming that those of us criticizing the actions of the British police have not been in life or death situations. It's possible some of us have. It's also possible that Sr. de Menezes had never been in a similar situation and made the wrong decision, but he is a civilian, and not entrusted with securing the safety of other people. Being entrusted to carry a gun is a responsibility. The choice to take the life of another human being should not be an easy one. Nor should such actions be excused.

but if they had merely said, "POLICE!" (which I doubt they said) then this tragedy could've been prevented. .
So, you don't know if they yelled "Police", if they did, it was o.k., but your gonna automatically assume they didn't and crucify them on a public forum? Perhaps you should find out what they said first?

If you can't come up with something more sensible than that then don't bother. You're interrupting the grown ups.

Then as a grown up you should endeavor to educate instead of exclude.

No, not really.

I have no problem with people discussing the incident.

What I find a tad obnoxious, though, is this pompous moralising.

"The police should have known this" or "should have done that"... All this after the fact, of course, when we have all the information at our disposal. And, as a result of us having that information, we're able to assess the situation in a way the officers at the time could not have done.

It would be ignorant for us not to analyse the mistakes of the past to ensure they don't happen in the future.

For what it's worth, I'm not actually saying that I think the officer is innocent or guilty. I'm saying that the officer, like all whose actions are called into question, should be judged by the legal system - not by the mob.

So you don't believe in being tried by a jury of your peers?

Especially a mob who weren't there, who haven't heard the officer's account of the incident and his thoughts, who (I have no doubt, given the sentiments expressed thus far) would reject anything he had to say if they did, and who didn't have to face what must have been an extremely difficult situation. But this mewling about "should" and "must" is nothing more than ignorant, gutter-press tabloid judgementalism.

Not if we get the facts straight.

And yes, I realise that if we extend my argument here regarding 'due process' then I have to face up to the fact that the victim here was not afforded such process - but that is why we're having the inquiry, as we always do on the extremely rare occasions when the British police shoot someone.

And people here are simply expressing their opinion as to how they think the inquiry should be handled, as is their right to do so.

What shocks me is that, based on the reports I read, the police shot him twice after he was tackled to the ground.

That's totally fucked. I think it should be involuntary manslaughter, but the sentence should be reduced because they thought he was going to kill alot of people, even though it was unfounded.

He was at a building that was being investigated, wearing a thick coat in July, and then got on one of the London subways that was previously bombed. Ununiformed, undercover police pulled a gun on him (probably without identifying themselves), he ran, they yelled for him to stop, then they tackled him and shot him dead with a handgun.


Let that be a lesson to all those who ignore the police in these times of terrrorism and it's leftist appeasers.

ok, YOU are sent to watch a building suspected of housing people responsible for the bombing. As soon as you get there, a man in a heavy jacket and a large backpack leaves the home. You follow. he heads from the home straight to the Train station. You want to make sure that he has no bomb on him so you call out to him, Identifying yourself as Police and he bolts into the station. he makes every attempt to get on to the train. On a train full of people, you tackle him, feel a hard object in his backpack and a bulky package around his waist, what is your next action Oye Oye?

you have the previous attempt which ended in your fellow officer killing an innocent person.

but you also know that the failed attempts had someone on the train with a detonator and possibly explosives. and you know of the other bombs that actually did go off.

you know have all the information the cop has. make your choice, and realize you do have the advantage, you can sit at your terminal and think about the solution... no Split second decisions here. so make your choice.

As I have already stated, the police should not have allowed the suspect to become aware of their presence until they were close enough to disable him.

If this was a stake out and the police were sent to watch a building suspected of housing suicide bombers then they should have anticipated that a suicide bomber would eventually exit the building and that they would have to apprehend this bomber. Instead they chose to follow the suspect until he reached a crowded location then called out to him from a distance that evidently provided him with enough space to manuver.

As I have already stated, the police should not have allowed the suspect to become aware of their presence until they were close enough to disable him.

If this was a stake out and the police were sent to watch a building suspected of housing suicide bombers then they should have anticipated that a suicide bomber would eventually exit the building and that they would have to apprehend this bomber. Instead they chose to follow the suspect until he reached a crowded location then called out to him from a distance that evidently provided him with enough space to manuver.my mistake then.

will remove post and tender my apologies.

the reason they followed him was to see if he would be meeting with others. they didn't know he was going to the train station. and security was almost non exsistant there at the train station, as proven by the fact that he did get on the train.

so will this mean tighter security at the train terminals then? who knows.

my mistake then.

will remove post and tender my apologies.

the reason they followed him was to see if he would be meeting with others. they didn't know he was going to the train station. and security was almost non exsistant there at the train station, as proven by the fact that he did get on the train.

so will this mean tighter security at the train terminals then? who knows.

In all honesty, a bunch of wild dogs could have done a better job.

I like to watch nature documentaries and saw one show about how wild dogs in Africa hunt in packs. The dogs split up, surround the prey and while the animal is distrcted by one dog, the others move in for the kill.

From what I've read it seems there were many police on the scene. Had they anticipated the possibility that the suspect was a terrorist bomber a couple of them could have easily positioned themselves between the train station and the house under surveillance.

With regards to tighter security, I have used public transportation in several countries and have seen turnstyles that are designed so they reach the ceiling of the entrance, thus making it impossible for people to hurdle their way into the station without paying.

In all honesty, a bunch of wild dogs could have done a better job.

I like to watch nature documentaries and saw one show about how wild dogs in Africa hunt in packs. The dogs split up, surround the prey and while the animal is distrcted by one dog, the others move in for the kill.

From what I've read it seems there were many police on the scene. Had they anticipated the possibility that the suspect was a terrorist bomber a couple of them could have easily positioned themselves between the train station and the house under surveillance.and how many police officers would be needed on "standby" for the eventality that a supect may suddenly head to the station? perhaps they need to take a page out of the Americans and create a transportation security services.

With regards to tighter security, I have used public transportation in several countries and have seen turnstyles that are designed so they reach the ceiling of the entrance, thus making it impossible for people to hurdle their way into the station without paying. sounds good. they should have those then.

If we started charging Police officers with manslaughter if after an investigation the 'victim' turned out to be innocent then other Police officers will start to worry about the wrong thing at the wrong time. For all they knew, this Brazillian could have had a concealed bomb under his heavy duty jacket and was about to blow up the subway.

In my opinion, the copper did the right thing. He told the guy to stop, he didn't. Someone told me 'What if he didn't understand English?'. Well he had been living here for 2-3 years so he would have grasped the concept of the command 'STOP'.

As for the Police identifying themselves? It is more than likely they did. Besides, how many armed criminals are going to be stupid as to wave a gun in public whilst making enough noise to attract attention? Not to mention shooting him in full view of the public?

Here are a couple stories on it:

Legally, this is involuntary manslaughter. Because it wasn't intended, but if they had merely said, "POLICE!" (which I doubt they said) then this tragedy could've been prevented. Or if they had not used lethal force, until it was absolutely necessary. I'm not well-versed in the British criminal justice system, but I highly doubt that they are allowed to shoot people before being certain that they are a lethal threat.
And what if they hadn't shot him, and he was a bomber? The coppers get fired for not shooting him. And don't forget, if they weren't coppers and were just hanging around the station, they would have been moved on. They wouldn't bee allowed to hang out in the station. Lemme put it this way - You're one of the Undercover guys in the station, and you hear over your radio that a suspected bomber is heading towards the station, with the previous bombings and the failed attempt fresh in your mind. You see the guy, and being worried about what happened, draw your gun and order him to halt. He runs. It looks like he may have a bomb under the coat - to be exact a tool belt with wires coming out of it, which looks a bit like some suicide belt. Now, you follow. He heads to the train but tripps. Are you going to wait for him to stand up and get on the train and blow himself up? No. You don't know he's not a bomber, and the fact that he ran from armed police is bad enough to show he may be a bomber. I blame it on his lack of intelligence - a thick winter coat in summer? How suspicious is that? - and the fact he had been in the country illegaly since 2003 is bad enough. I know this may sound sick, but they're finally doing something to combat those illegals! I mean, he wouldn't have been shot if he had left when the visa expired, and if he applied for another he probably would have been allowed to stay, probably with massive benefits. Because he didn't, that meant he was either too dumb to understand the laws of our country, which he has been in for over 3 years, or he had something to hide. If he had been here legally, they probably would have done background checks showing he was highly unlikely to be a bomber, thus there would be a greater chanse of him not being killed. Hell, they may have even let him go.

And what if they hadn't shot him, and he was a bomber? The coppers get fired for not shooting him. And don't forget, if they weren't coppers and were just hanging around the station, they would have been moved on. They wouldn't bee allowed to hang out in the station. Lemme put it this way - You're one of the Undercover guys in the station, and you hear over your radio that a suspected bomber is heading towards the station, with the previous bombings and the failed attempt fresh in your mind. You see the guy, and being worried about what happened, draw your gun and order him to halt. He runs. It looks like he may have a bomb under the coat - to be exact a tool belt with wires coming out of it, which looks a bit like some suicide belt. Now, you follow. He heads to the train but tripps. Are you going to wait for him to stand up and get on the train and blow himself up? No. You don't know he's not a bomber, and the fact that he ran from armed police is bad enough to show he may be a bomber. I blame it on his lack of intelligence - a thick winter coat in summer? How suspicious is that? - and the fact he had been in the country illegaly since 2003 is bad enough. I know this may sound sick, but they're finally doing something to combat those illegals! I mean, he wouldn't have been shot if he had left when the visa expired, and if he applied for another he probably would have been allowed to stay, probably with massive benefits. Because he didn't, that meant he was either too dumb to understand the laws of our country, which he has been in for over 3 years, or he had something to hide. If he had been here legally, they probably would have done background checks showing he was highly unlikely to be a bomber, thus there would be a greater chanse of him not being killed. Hell, they may have even let him go.

And that concludes Great Britain's entry in the "how many cliches and barking mad opinions can we fit into one paragraph" contest.

You haven't actually thought about that have you? You've just written down what your equally badly informed mates in the playground said. Now be a good child and run along, the grown ups are busy.

If we started charging Police officers with manslaughter if after an investigation the 'victim' turned out to be innocent then other Police officers will start to worry about the wrong thing at the wrong time. For all they knew, this Brazillian could have had a concealed bomb under his heavy duty jacket and was about to blow up the subway.

In my opinion, the copper did the right thing. He told the guy to stop, he didn't. Someone told me 'What if he didn't understand English?'. Well he had been living here for 2-3 years so he would have grasped the concept of the command 'STOP'.

As for the Police identifying themselves? It is more than likely they did. Besides, how many armed criminals are going to be stupid as to wave a gun in public whilst making enough noise to attract attention? Not to mention shooting him in full view of the public?

You'd be surprised.

With regards to the police identifying themselves, waving a gun in the air and saying "I'm a cop!" means nothing. I could wave a gun in the air and day "I'm a cop!". Does that make me a cop?

[QUOTE]and how many police officers would be needed on "standby" for the eventality that a supect may suddenly head to the station?

I think a surveillance team of two plainclothed police would be sufficient and two cops in uniform, posted on route to the station. The undercover police would follow the suspect and judge how he reacted to seeing the police in uniform.

perhaps they need to take a page out of the Americans and create a transportation security services.

I'm not familiar with this service, could you elaborate?

You'd be surprised.

With regards to the police identifying themselves, waving a gun in the air and saying "I'm a cop!" means nothing. I could wave a gun in the air and day "I'm a cop!". Does that make me a cop?
no, but it does make you guilty of "impersonating an Officer" and thus you would be arrested by real Police Officers.


The Transporation Security Service is another branch created by our Federal Government to patrol and secure our public transportation system. they handle the security and safety of the passengers.

no, but it does make you guilty of "impersonating an Officer" and thus you would be arrested by real Police Officers.

If I was a law abiding citizen this would concern me. If I was a terrorist, a gangster or a madman with a pistol then what other recourse would there be for an innocent pedestrian but to run?

The Transporation Security Service is another branch created by our Federal Government to patrol and secure our public transportation system. they handle the security and safety of the passengers.

Are you from the U.S.?

The reason why I ask is because, according to the findings of the 911 inquiry, it is the lack of communication between different agencies that resulted in the success of the September 11 attacks. Wouldn't it be simpler and more effective to simply increase police patrols around public transportation routes than to create a new government branch?

If I was a law abiding citizen this would concern me. If I was a terrorist, a gangster or a madman with a pistol then what other recourse would there be for an innocent pedestrian but to run?If I was innocent, why would I run from someone telling me to stop while waving a gun? I know of no Gangster or Hitman or anyone that would want to kill me so I would simply step out of the way and give the person room to pass. Are you invovled with the mob or some element that would want you dead?


Are you from the U.S.?

The reason why I ask is because, according to the findings of the 911 inquiry, it is the lack of communication between different agencies that resulted in the success of the September 11 attacks. Wouldn't it be simpler and more effective to simply increase police patrols around public transportation routes than to create a new government branch?
You still need to hire those officers when you increase patrols, or are you going to streatch them thin? you still need to set up some form of Security that is effective and Visible to prevent attempts and hamper those that will still try.

either way, changes need to be made.

[QUOTE]If I was innocent, why would I run from someone telling me to stop while waving a gun? I know of no Gangster or Hitman or anyone that would want to kill me so I would simply step out of the way and give the person room to pass. Are you invovled with the mob or some element that would want you dead?

You do not address the issue of random violence. Isn't this is what makes terrorism such a loathsome act? The fact that people must be fearfull of an enemy that they have not provoked.

You still need to hire those officers when you increase patrols, or are you going to streatch them thin? you still need to set up some form of Security that is effective and Visible to prevent attempts and hamper those that will still try.
either way, changes need to be made.

Agreed, but what kind of changes is the issue. Do you give into fear and create a police state with several divisions of security agents, some of them acting independently of others, while information is lost in the bureaucracy, leading to more innocent civilians being killed?

i did not read the rest of the forum, but i agree with the Scotland Yard shoot-to-kill policy. IT is a big step for a nation that used to pride itself with having a mainly gun free police department. Yes an innocent man died and that is regretable. But, if the strategy is discouraged, what effects will it have in the future.

You do not address the issue of random violence. Isn't this is what makes terrorism such a loathsome act? The fact that people must be fearfull of an enemy that they have not provoked.you have been changing the scenario trying (I guess) to make me or anyone else say "I would run" but the simple matter is I wouldn't because if it's someone who wants me dead, running isnt going to save me. at most it will get alot of other people dead when the shots are fired. if they are cops (and in the news story, they ARE POLICE OFFICERS,) I still wouldn't run because they are COPS.

I'll admit random Violence exists, but rarely (in fact I've never seen of any) random act of violence start with a warning, they usually just start shooting. at that point their intent is clear and taking cover is still preferable than running.

Agreed, but what kind of changes is the issue. Do you give into fear and create a police state with several divisions of security agents, some of them acting independently of others, while information is lost in the bureaucracy, leading to more innocent civilians being killed?that is up to you and the people. a police state? or no change. the balance must be found and to have someone outside your country dictate that is... foolish.

it's ultmately what do you value. Freedom or Security. and howmuch of what you value are you willing to give up to stop the terrorists from harming you and your people.

Hmmmmmmm...........man in a thick coat in the middle of summer with a bag, acting suspicious a day after four bombs were planted and four more were attempted, and then when the police stop him and ask for ID he runs.

This guy is surely up for a Darwin Award here.

IF I lived, visited or was even near a city where terrorists had been busy bombing, I would EXPECT the police to be a bit on edge, and I sure as hell would help them out any way I could, expired visa or no. What's the worst that can happen with an expired visa? Deportation, what normally happens in England when you have an expired visa? You pay a fine and renew it. You have to be an idiot to run from armed police a day after people were hurt and killed in subway bombings.

Fecking idiot.

you have been changing the scenario trying (I guess) to make me or anyone else say "I would run" but the simple matter is I wouldn't because if it's someone who wants me dead, running isnt going to save me. at most it will get alot of other people dead when the shots are fired. if they are cops (and in the news story, they ARE POLICE OFFICERS,) I still wouldn't run because they are COPS.

I'm not changing the scenario, what I am doing is trying to do is explore different perspectives on Sr. de Menezes' frame of mind. But this is a digression since why he ran is not the issue. The issue is whether or not society is going to become accustom to living in a police state and the level of immunity the police will have in order to ensure public "safety".

I'll admit random Violence exists, but rarely (in fact I've never seen of any) random act of violence start with a warning, they usually just start shooting. at that point their intent is clear and taking cover is still preferable than running.

If you're lucky you never will. I have seen random acts of violence and there is rarely a warning. Sometimes someone says the wrong thing to the wrong person, some one pulls out a knife, some one else pulls out a gun. Your right in claiming that taking cover is better than running, but what if there is no cover, or what if the men with guns are looking at you. My first instinct would be to move out of the way too, unless I thought they were coming for me.

that is up to you and the people. a police state? or no change. the balance must be found and to have someone outside your country dictate that is... foolish.

So then you think the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were foolish?

it's ultmately what do you value. Freedom or Security. and howmuch of what you value are you willing to give up to stop the terrorists from harming you and your people.

I think both freedom and security can be gained by opposing the current war on terror. These militaristic tactics have been proven ineffective as both Spain and the UK have been hit after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. As for those who might point to the way Israel has handled suicide bombings, this has also proven ineffective since the Israelis are the ones withdrawing from the disputed areas and not the Palestineans. By using military tactics against terror (fighting fire with fire) you run the risk of proving that terrorist tactics are effective by limiting the freedoms of your own people without the guarantee of security.

I'm not changing the scenario, what I am doing is trying to do is explore different perspectives on Sr. de Menezes' frame of mind. But this is a digression since why he ran is not the issue. The issue is whether or not society is going to become accustom to living in a police state and the level of immunity the police will have in order to ensure public "safety".then you should state it as such. the Fact that Sr. de Menezes ran from the police was wrong, BUT he was not to blame for his death. His death was an accident. as for the rest... on how much of a Police state and how much power the Police will have is dependant on the UK and her people.

If you're lucky you never will. I have seen random acts of violence and there is rarely a warning. Sometimes someone says the wrong thing to the wrong person, some one pulls out a knife, some one else pulls out a gun. Your right in claiming that taking cover is better than running, but what if there is no cover, or what if the men with guns are looking at you. My first instinct would be to move out of the way too, unless I thought they were coming for me.if there was no cover, the term "Hitting the dirt" comes to mind. getting down and out of the way serves two purposes, Minimizing, (Not removing) the chances of getting shot, and it leaves those perpetuating the violence easier to be identified by the law enforcement officials. in the heat of battle, people tend to focus on the moving objects so running actually makes you stand out more.


So then you think the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were foolish?Sorry, won't hijack this tread, but that is a different scenario altogether now.

:headbang: gahh... Airplane! flashbacks.

I think both freedom and security can be gained by opposing the current war on terror. These militaristic tactics have been proven ineffective as both Spain and the UK have been hit after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. As for those who might point to the way Israel has handled suicide bombings, this has also proven ineffective since the Israelis are the ones withdrawing from the disputed areas and not the Palestineans. By using military tactics against terror (fighting fire with fire) you run the risk of proving that terrorist tactics are effective by limiting the freedoms of your own people without the guarantee of security.again, it's different for each Nation.

restricting some freedoms can prove to benefit the terrorists, but so can the lack of security. again the balance must be found.

then you should state it as such. the Fact that Sr. de Menezes ran from the police was wrong, BUT he was not to blame for his death. His death was an accident. as for the rest... on how much of a Police state and how much power the Police will have is dependant on the UK and her people.

Apparently the terrorists are having an influence in these decisions.

if there was no cover, the term "Hitting the dirt" comes to mind. getting down and out of the way serves two purposes, Minimizing, (Not removing) the chances of getting shot, and it leaves those perpetuating the violence easier to be identified by the law enforcement officials. in the heat of battle, people tend to focus on the moving objects so running actually makes you stand out more.

This does not address the issue that Sr. de Menezes was the target of their advance.

Sorry, won't hijack this tread, but that is a different scenario altogether now.

You did raise and continue to raise the issue of a nation's sovereignty. Or does this only apply to the UK?

:headbang: gahh... Airplane! flashbacks.

Banging your head against the wall won't make you think clearer. ;)

again, it's different for each Nation.

restricting some freedoms can prove to benefit the terrorists, but so can the lack of security. again the balance must be found.

Can you provide me with the name of a single nation that is immune from terrorism as a result of a militaristic policy?

Apparently the terrorists are having an influence in these decisions.any radical event will influence lives and lifestyles.
This does not address the issue that Sr. de Menezes was the target of their advance.nope, Sr. de Menezes was under ad hoc investigation when he exited a building that was under investigation.
You did raise and continue to raise the issue of a nation's sovereignty. Or does this only apply to the UK?I didn't raise the issue of a Nation's Sovereigncy, I was commenting that it's not proper for an American citizen to dictate how London should handle it's security. Just like it's not proper for an Australian citizen to fight for a change in the American Pledge of Alligence.
Banging your head against the wall won't make you think clearer. ;) actually, it does. again it's all on control, you just don't wanna bang it too hard.
Can you provide me with the name of a single nation that is immune from terrorism as a result of a militaristic policy?no nation is immune, military action or not, but are you saying bowing down and doing what they say is the best solution?

any radical event will influence lives and lifestyles.

Clearly.

nope, Sr. de Menezes was under ad hoc investigation when he exited a building that was under investigation.

I seriously hope this isn't deteriorating into a debate of semantics.

I didn't raise the issue of a Nation's Sovereigncy, I was commenting that it's not proper for an American citizen to dictate how London should handle it's security. Just like it's not proper for an Australian citizen to fight for a change in the American Pledge of Alligence.

When you say American do you mean someone from the U.S.?

With regards to your point, I find it somewhat hypocritical of the Brits, who have intervened in the politics of nations like Canada, India, Palestine, Australia, etc... are now protesting that the international community does not have a say in how they handle what is clearly a global problem.

actually, it does. again it's all on control, you just don't wanna bang it too hard.

"Whatever doesn't kill you only makes you stronger" - Homer Simpson

no nation is immune, military action or not, but are you saying bowing down and doing what they say is the best solution?

No, terrorism is something I am completely against. But the current tactics are clearly flawed. Dropping bombs on a country in order to find a terrorist leader is like trying to kill a fly with a shot gun. All it does is leave your house with a whole lot of holes.

If we started charging Police officers with manslaughter if after an investigation the 'victim' turned out to be innocent then other Police officers will start to worry about the wrong thing at the wrong time.

And what would that thought be? "Since he's already pinned to the ground, maybe I shouldn't shoot this guy in the head seven times."

With regards to your point, I find it somewhat hypocritical of the Brits, who have intervened in the politics of nations like Canada, India, Palestine, Australia, etc... are now protesting that the international community does not have a say in how they handle what is clearly a global problem.there is a difference between Politicians and National leaders interacting and Civilians interacting.


"Whatever doesn't kill you only makes you stronger" - Homer Simpsonthat's correct. your point?

No, terrorism is something I am completely against. But the current tactics are clearly flawed. Dropping bombs on a country in order to find a terrorist leader is like trying to kill a fly with a shot gun. All it does is leave your house with a whole lot of holes.they dropped a bomb on Sr. de Menezes? or are you trying to change the focus of the thread, which is the tactics of London's police because you finally figured out that what the police did was correct given the information they had and the situation.

And what would that thought be? "Since he's already pinned to the ground, maybe I shouldn't shoot this guy in the head seven times."
How about, "I got people yelling police running up behind me. I think I will not run but get out of the way."

Or even better,

"those police officers are yelling me to stop... I will stop and find out what do they want."

Scenario 1) Man is seen leaving watched building believed to house suicide bombers. Is followed as is unknown and no reason to stop him. Man appears to be heavily dressed for prevailing weather. Man boards bus. Man leaves bus and enters second house to carry out legitimate electrical work.
2) Man boards bus and alights at underground station. Police now wary due to previous bombing attacks. Man catches second bus. Leaves bus and enters office building to work.
3) Man boards bus and alights outside underground station. Makes way to station. Police now cannot allow further risk and challenge him. Man stops and is arrested, later released.
4) Man boards bus and alights outside tube. Makes way to station. Police challenge him. Man runs but stops short of station entrance. Police point weapons and order man to ground. Man arrested, released later.
5) Man boards bus. Alights outside tube. Makes way to station. Man is challenged by police. Man runs into underground. Police fail to stop man who runs onto train and detonates bomb.
6) What actually happened.

So many smart arses with glib answers. Glibness is not for poor bastards trying to protect the public in one of the few remaining decent democracies. The war against Afghanistan was understandable. The war against Iraq is unforgiveable. 9/11 was an attrocity. The Madrid bombing was an attrocity. The London bombings were an attrocity. The gunning down of an innocent man was a tragedy. The protection of millions of other Londoners is a neccessity. Pronouncing guilt before trial is an abomination.

[QUOTE]there is a difference between Politicians and National leaders interacting and Civilians interacting.

Correct. If civilians took more of an interest in public affairs there wouldn't be so much corruption.

that's correct. your point?

Replace the question mark with a period and we're in total agreement.

they dropped a bomb on Sr. de Menezes? or are you trying to change the focus of the thread, which is the tactics of London's police because you finally figured out that what the police did was correct given the information they had and the situation.

The issue that concerns me the most is the way authorities are mishandling the war on terror. What happened to Sr. de Menezes is simply another example of how excessive force is not the answer. The murder of innocent civilians creates a lack of confidence in the general population's attitude towards the ability of the authorities to handle the situation. In short, fighting fire with fire is only making things easier for the terrorists.

If we started charging Police officers with manslaughter if after an investigation the 'victim' turned out to be innocent then other Police officers will start to worry about the wrong thing at the wrong time.<snip>There was a recent (but prior to 7/7, so unusually prescient for propoganda) storyline on a cop-drama-unfortunately-turned-soap here in the UK called The Bill. An officer was attacked by someone and defended themselves with their asp, striking their head and killing them. They were taken off duty and put through the ringer in the judicial system.

Shortly after that event, one of the most experienced patrol officers found himself in a situation where he had no other way of defending himself but his asp (pepper spray had been knocked fomr his hand) but rather than Do The Right Thing he got severely beaten and hospitalised.

That's fictional, and the show sucks at reality these days (there have been several station-destroying fires and other unlikely events in the past few years) but in many ways this is indeed a mirror of the above situation.

Officers should not use pepper spray, asps, right to search or their blues'n'twos indiscriminately, but they should not find themselves discouraged from using them in legitimate pursuit of their role as upholders of the law. The same goes for the tools of the trade used by the armed officers.

A proper and measured assessment of the situation is hopefully going on as we speak. It should neither discourage legitimate policing (by officers who cannot be expected to be omniscient) nor encourage gung-ho tactics. And I bet not everyone will be happy with the outcome, whatever it is.

The police only did what they thought was safe for the people as if he was a terrorist and he got away and blew the train up then the police would be in real trouble.. they only did what was safe for the public

terrible shame that bloke died. But i'm sorry to say it was his fault for running.
Oh, and shooting the man in the head several times is NOT excessive. Had he been a suicide bomber, he could have still set of the explosives and killed countless people while pined down. The only option i can see where you the officer are sure to protect the many innocent lives in the carriage is to kill the bomber. Why because your 100% sure to stop him. Nothing else gives 100% certainty. To be sure, shoot several times to make sure you destroy the brain.

terrible shame that bloke died. But i'm sorry to say it was his fault for running.
Oh, and shooting the man in the head several times is NOT excessive. Had he been a suicide bomber, he could have still set of the explosives and killed countless people while pined down. The only option i can see where you the officer are sure to protect the many innocent lives in the carriage is to kill the bomber. Why because your 100% sure to stop him. Nothing else gives 100% certainty. To be sure, shoot several times to make sure you destroy the brain.

Destroying the brain definitely seems to be the prefered strategy in the war on terror.

i did not read the rest of the forum, but i agree with the Scotland Yard shoot-to-kill policy. IT is a big step for a nation that used to pride itself with having a mainly gun free police department. Yes an innocent man died and that is regretable. But, if the strategy is discouraged, what effects will it have in the future.

You mention the danger of criticizing the methods of the police is that the strategy is discouraged. Perhaps it should be. If you review the posts in this thread you will see what I mean by this.

Here is a quote from the cbc link.

"...police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him in the head and torso. "

Do you think this is proper police procedure?It was the "proper police procedure" of how to deal with someone that might blow himself up. The problem with that is, there is no time to find out if he really was going to blow himself up. But no one would have expected the police to act like this, since they didn't publicize that this was how potential suicide bombers would be treated. The guy had no way to know that he was going to get shot in the head several times after he'd been pinned down.

It was the "proper police procedure" of how to deal with someone that might blow himself up. The problem with that is, there is no time to find out if he really was going to blow himself up. But no one would have expected the police to act like this, since they didn't publicize that this was how potential suicide bombers would be treated. The guy had no way to know that he was going to get shot in the head several times after he'd been pinned down.At the same time, it is also true that no Britain (or experienced-liver-in-Britain that it turns out this guy was, despite his apparent illegality and definite foreign extraction) should have any legitimate reason to fear and run from announced police officers, armed or otherwise.

This is the crux. Did he run because he did not realise they were police officers or because he did.

I must say that I tend to think they did announce themselves (because some early reported witness accounts include the fact that they did, which I take to [perhaps niaively] mean that they did [and those who say they didn't hear such just didn't hear such]) but who knows if he heard/understood/believed the calls.

Had they not announced themselves then my experience (limited as it is by never being involved in anything so seriously gun-related) is ambiguous, but I'd perhaps have personally "duck'n'cover"ed or frozen in terror, perhaps his background or a knowledge of the severe tendencies of the local criminals (or, again, some instinctive survival strategy [negated, even reversed, under the given circumstances] based upon criminals from his homeland) might have given him the reasons to run, having been targetted by unknown armed men.

Had they instead announced themselves (and, again, I personally believe this, but the enquiry will probably swivel upon it) then there's the split of whether the message got across. Had it not (again, not heard/understood/believed) then we have the above circumstance, but if the message did get across there's the possibility that there was a guilt of some kind, from the grossly out-of-proportion guilt of the expired student visa all the way up to the possibility (which I'm not claiming existed, more including for completeness) of an actual guilt associated with the crime he was (otherwise) mistakenly shot for.


In no way does this mean that he was actual guilty of anything (at all, never mind of anything that matters), and in no way do I say (for definite, for I have only media reports to go on and you know how accurate they can be) that the cry of "Armed police" or whatever was properly delivered. Just that the part played by the announcing (or not) officers is going to be pivotal to the precipitation of the event and is being investigated by (however much or little me or thee might personally trust them to be decent and non-whitewashing about it) the appropriate authorities. Once events were started, rightly or wrongly, then I really don't see much 'wrong' insofar as protection of the public (...the running man was no longer a member of the public, but an extraoordinarilly dangerous suspect, even if in potentia, whose possibly instinctive actions did him absolutely no favours and gave the pursuing officers no wiggle-room in good faith).


This is a much-too-long way of saying that while I would not have necessarily expected this behaviour (the end-game) from the police out of the blue, it was actually a direct result of events precipitated from a more managable incident whereby I would personally have been shocked, surprised, even caught off my guard by the sudden confrontation by armed police, but as a resident (all my life, like me, or [if I dare hypothesise] for significant time, like him) of the UK I am convinced, rightly or wrongly, that confrontation with armed officers would not have resulted in my own headlong flight in the same manner as observed, and thus have led to a completely different outcome.

While no such complicated extrapolation would have gone through my mind at the time (instead being full of "what do they think I'm guilty of") had I/he been challeneged and taken a floor-bound position instead of running then (apart from my additional safety being secured if I was not the actual target and the dangerous individual was behind me) then even if they still considered me a bomb threat (whatever I thought/knew I was) the officers could have urged/shepherded any remaining public out of the locale and, whilst still at a distance, requested the removal of the suspect clothing (heavy coat, belt of electrical equipment, actual bomb had I had one) to clear or confirm their suspicions, with minimal danger to self or others. Even if I refused, there was the possibility of bringing in the bomb-disposal team's Wheelbarrow with relatively little lead-time, but no need to shoot me.

In the tube-system, me alread having proved to be unwilling to cooperate with people who were on appointed public-protection duties and with their own persons in close proximity and danger (as well as members of the public) and in substantially suspected immediate danger with no wiggle-room or time for hesitation, well, how can you not realise that the kind of spur-of-the-moment deicisions that had to be made were followed in the only correct manner given the balance of known and suspected facts and circumstances. To have not shot could have been fatal to many, and even as it were I could imagine the officer not doing so would have been deemed psychological unsuitable to armed protection for not doing so.

Truly a tradgedy, in all respects, but the end-game of this tragedy was decided/precipitated at the start by the actions/reaction of the officers/suspect, and essentially unavoidable by the end. I suspect that too many people eagerly await the enquiry results for it to be fully sub-carpetted as several contriutors think it will. I'm also certain that whatever the outcome and decision of the enquiry actually is, there's going to be a large number of people crying foul (too lenient/severe on the officer concerned, too scathing/sympathetic with the victim) and the various attendant conspiracy theorists redoubling efforts.

It was the "proper police procedure" of how to deal with someone that might blow himself up. The problem with that is, there is no time to find out if he really was going to blow himself up. But no one would have expected the police to act like this, since they didn't publicize that this was how potential suicide bombers would be treated. The guy had no way to know that he was going to get shot in the head several times after he'd been pinned down.

This article was brought to my attention through another thread.

http://www.itv.com/news/index_1677571.html

I guess we need a new poll