[Warren]

Don't know where this belongs. Move if needed, please.





Hmmm, if these details are correct then the cops screwed up big time.



So he was running for the train and NOT from the cops. Was not wearing a bulky coat and did not vault the turnstyle.

klik (http://www.itv.com/news/index_1677571.html)

The Brazilian electrician was killed on 22 July, the day after the
series of failed bombings on the tube and bus network.

The crucial mistake that ultimately led to his death was made at
9.30am when Jean Charles left his flat in Scotia Road, South London.

Surveillance officers wrongly believed he could have been Hussain
Osman, one of the prime suspects, or another terrorist suspect.

By 10am that morning, elite firearms officers were provided with what
they describe as "positive identification" and shot De Menezes eight
times in the head and upper body.

The documents and photographs confirm that Jean Charles was not
carrying any bags, and was wearing a denim jacket, not a bulky winter
coat, as had previously been claimed.

He was behaving normally, and did not vault the barriers, even
stopping to pick up a free newspaper.

He started running when we saw a tube at the platform. Police had
agreed they would shoot a suspect if he ran.

A document describes CCTV footage, which shows Mr de Menezes entered
Stockwell station at a "normal walking pace" and descended slowly on
an escalator.

The document said: "At some point near the bottom he is seen to run
across the concourse and enter the carriage before sitting in an
available seat.

"Almost simultaneously armed officers were provided with positive
identification."

A member of the surveillance team is quoted in the report. He said: "I
heard shouting which included the word `police' and turned to face the
male in the denim jacket.

"He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19
officers. I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my
arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side.

"I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously
sitting. I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was
dragged away onto the floor of the carriage."

The report also said a post mortem examination showed Mr de Menezes
was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, but three
other bullets missed, with the casings left lying in the tube
carriage.

Police have declined to comment while the mistaken killing is still
being investigated.

[NukemJim]

What a horrible situation for all concerned :cuss:

Does anyone know how many of these shot in error suicide/homocide bombers occur in Israel ? The news media occasionly floats stories of these terrorists being shot before the set off their bombs but I cannot recall hearing about them being in the media, can anyone ?

NukemJim

[griz]

Wow. Seems you would take special care to have the correct identification if it means executing the suspect. Bad situation all around as I'm sure the police were under a lot of pressure to make sure nothing happened.

[SkunkApe]

Sorry. I changed my mind.

[Joejojoba111]

I wonder if people will start to see a trend, instead of believing the 'official' story just maybe all those 'anti-authority types' might be onto something, when they suspect the worst in every gov't scenario...

And can anyone here imagine the scope of government control over news media, over all information? It's unfathomable, all those witnesses that were co-erced into not talking, all those news outlets that were convinced to run the official story, all the peole who believed and defended the official story simply because it was the official story.

I'm sorry, but this has been a demonstration of the information distribution networks of the free world, and it has shown that you absolutely will not receive the truth.

Well, maybe you will learn the truth, a month later, when hundreds of eye-witnesses and dozens of cameras recorded an event. Maybe.

[rock jock]

I fully support LE when they have to make a split-second decision based on their absolute best effort to prepare themselves and gather intelligence in advance, however, when they fabricate details to coverup a complete mess, when they lie, when they make the victim to be a BG, I think they should be skinned alive.

[Joejojoba111]

"rock jock I fully support LE when they have to make a split-second decision based on their absolute best effort to prepare themselves and gather intelligence in advance, however, when they fabricate details to coverup a complete mess, when they lie, when they make the victim to be a BG, I think they should be skinned alive."


I think you over-react a bit. They're people, just people. Everyone wants them to be incorruptible god-like figures with the wisdom of Solomon and so-on. That's the problem ,they're dirty grubby hungry horny eating drinking pissing shting human beings, with all the flaws inherent.

...But the Founders of America KNEW that people were people, no-one is incorruptible, and basically that People were too not-perfect and not-100%Good to be trusted with the lives of other people. This is exactly what you have to expect from People, and it's exactly why People aren't supposed to have as much power as officials currently do.

The founders also knew that people are stupid and short-sighted, and that we'd sell our hard-won rights and freedoms back to the government in a matter of time. That's why they designed it to be so incredibly hard for us to give up our rights and freedoms.

Their system coped with human nature about as well as one could expect, when you take into account that there have been 2 types of people for the last 100 years, those who didn't care about the constitution, and those who wanted to erase the guarantees of freedom.

Britain was never in quite the same boat, they are ahead of us, but their system by nature will probably not go as far as we will. IE in 10 years what they done will look like moderates compared to where we are.

[Beren]

Yup, similar article says:

"The latest documents suggest Mr de Menezes had walked into Stockwell Tube station, picked up a free newspaper, walked through ticket barriers, had started to run when he saw a train arriving and was sitting down in a train when he was shot."

BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4157892.stm)

For me, the second worst part of all this is how distorted the official reports were at the time of the shooting. We've discovered that practically everything they said was incorrect or outright contradictory.

[feedthehogs]

We've discovered that practically everything they said was incorrect or outright contradictory

I would think a more appropriate description would be "they outright lied and conspired to hide the truth to cover up their murder of an innocent person."

Something one of us would be looking at hard time for.

[c_yeager]

I would think a more appropriate description would be "they outright lied and conspired to hide the truth to cover up their murder of an innocent person."

Im inclined to agree with this. There were simply too many convenient "errors" for it to have been done unintentionally.

[shermacman]

Everyone wants them to be incorruptible god-like figures with the wisdom of Solomon

Yup, we do.
Especially when they can fire eight shots into your head and neck, in public, on bad information, and then lie, distort and try to cover it up. Especially when the whole problem starts, not with employed electricians rushing to get to work on time, but with an immigration system that has tainted the entire country with the bile of the IslamoFascists.

[Byron Quick]

Apparently he was identified by the surveillance team earlier in the day as definitely being one of the bombers.

If that is so, then it is not so much the policeman who pulled the trigger who is responsible...rather it is the team that made the mistaken identification.

Consider. You've been told that the man is one of the bombers. He's on a subway train. Are you going to tell him to not move and slowly place his hands on his head? If I have what I believe to be good reason, I'm not.

Intelligence methods have to be improved dramatically or we will see more of this.

Denim jacket in the 60's. I wear a vest when it's a 100.

[one-shot-one]

For those that think that this was anything other than a tragic accident, I ask what was the gain? Sure it was bad and the person who wrongly I.D. him should be punished, but if your suggesting it was not an accident then what is the gain (reason)?
Also as to the reports being skewed in the beginning, I say that’s true in every case even down to fender bender accidents. What you saw and what you did is still being filtered though the adrenaline.

[buzz_knox]

The cops who pulled the trigger bear as much responsibility as anyone. The cops had "agreed" to fire if the suspect ran. The suspect ran to a train and sat down. The only thing he did when the cops yelled "police" was to stand up and advance. They then threw him back into the seat and shot him.

So under the stated rules of engagement, they violated them when they didn't shoot him as he "ran to the train with terrorist intent" but then shot him when he "approached with malice aforethought."

[kbr80]

its called Murder.

[buzz_knox]

For those that think that this was anything other than a tragic accident, I ask what was the gain? Sure it was bad and the person who wrongly I.D. him should be punished, but if your suggesting it was not an accident then what is the gain (reason)?

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Tragic accidents resulting in deaths are routinely prosecuted in this country, and I presume in the United Kingdom. That of course won't happen. As for gain/reason, that comes more into the coverup when the cops tried to conceal the "tragic accident" by lying about the various circumstances leading up to it.

It wasn't an accident; at a minimum, it was negligence.

[one-shot-one]

that there was negligence involved. what I'm questioning is the seeming thought by some folks that all/most/some police shoot inocent people for no/any reason, these people are human and have to live with this, that is not as easy a some of you may think.
monday morning quater backing can be fun but not on all subjects.

[Joejojoba111]

"that there was negligence involved. what I'm questioning is the seeming thought by some folks that all/most/some police shoot inocent people for no/any reason, these people are human and have to live with this, that is not as easy a some of you may think."

I remember a skit on the Kids in the Hall where there was a shark that ate people, and then felt bad about it. It was funny.

But in reality 'feeling bad about it afterwards' means bugger all.

[buzz_knox]

these people are human and have to live with this, that is not as easy a some of you may think.

It seemed awfully easy to slander the decedent, and lie about pretty much everything involved.

[boofus]

I'm still wondering if the 'police' were indeed SAS. Doesn't it seem like an excessive amount of force for bobbies? The shooting sounded alot like what SAS and GSG-9 did in various embassy crises. They even shot dead surrendering and hiding terrorists.

It would make more sense for the cover up if they were from the regiments. No one in British govt would want to admit that their best and brightest counter-terrorist unit made a mistake. Also the public would know the government does not have the capability of protecting them --> oops the genie is out of the bottle now.

[p35]

Everything I've heard says that the guy was at the bottom of a pile of police officers when they started shooting. I don't think that's acceptable police work anywhere.

Sure, it's an honest mistake- no one set out to shoot some random guy on his way to work- but still, he died because they didn't give him a chance to identify himself before shooting him multiple times in the head point-blank. That's just not acceptable.

[Colt46]

British military and police have been shooting what they believe to be dangerous terrorists since the seventies. Too bad they don't always get the right guy and often times are using very questionable intelligence. I don't think any of the shooters have ever been made accountable.

[GigaBuist]

I'm sorry, but this has been a demonstration of the information distribution networks of the free world, and it has shown that you absolutely will not receive the truth. <Cue X-Files theme song>... The truth is out there.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1711303,00.html

July 28 they were reporting: THE family of the Brazilian man shot dead by marksmen who mistook him for a suicide bomber revealed last night how police have changed their account of the incident.
As the body of Jean Charles de Menezes was flown home to Brazil for his funeral later today, his cousin said that senior officers at Scotland Yard have retracted claims that the 27-year-old electrician was acting suspiciously, so officers had no option but to open fire.

Vivien Figueiredo, 22, said police told her that he was wearing a lightweight denim jacket and not some bulky coat that could have hidden an explosive belt underneath. Detectives also claimed immediately after the shooting that Mr Menezes had refused to heed shouted warnings by armed police and vaulted the ticket barriers at Stockwell Tube station.

Now police say that he used his travelcard to gain access to the station. Ms Figueiredo said: “They are saying he did absolutely nothing wrong when he was killed, so why don’t they say all this publicly.”

How was this hushed up in the major media here in the USA? I have no idea. I guess we have to actually see pictures of evidence before we stop believing the "official" story.

It seems that as time went on even pro-liberty minded people were starting to become comfortable with the idea of executing suspected terrorists on the spot if they did anything remotely suspicious. I think that's pretty much entrenched in our brains now. Take a look at this thread as evidence.

At first we were relieved that the police got one of the bad guys, then we were outraged to learn he was actually innocent, and now we're ticked off that the guy had the wrong kind of coat on.

[jcoiii]

I have to agree that covering up/making up information in an attempt to cover for cops is total crap. I think people would have been a lot less upset (I know I would) if they had come out and said "We thought we had a positive ID on a known terrorist. We saw him running to get on a train. A bunch of crap happened on the train (they describe the situation truthfully) and we accidentally shot this man."

While there would still be a huge problem with that, how many of you would have been as upset as you are now? I hate crap like this (lying) because it makes people think that ALL LEO do this all the time, which is most decidedly not the case.

editted for spelling

[one-shot-one]

well said,
i agree.

[RKCheung]

Here's a picture (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050817/481/lon80308171616) of Mr. Menezes with his "bulky coat" on.

WARNING: Not for the squeamish.

[gc70]

This is an absolutely incredible cover-up. The part that I can't understand is how the authorities so quickly got to the witnesses at the scene and persuaded them to spew the "party line" when they emerged from the tube station and were interviewed on live television right after the incident.

</sarcasm off>

So documents supposedly leaked from the Independent Police Complaints Commission allegedly contradict the official account of events. Whoop-de-do. The new "evidence" is also at odds with contemporaneous eyewitness accounts.

I don't believe the official police account of events is accurate. And I don't believe that this sensational "leaked" account of events is accurate. I'll just wait for the final account from the Independent Police Complaints Commission and see what it contains.

[c_yeager]

Apparently he was identified by the surveillance team earlier in the day as definitely being one of the bombers.

If that is so, then it is not so much the policeman who pulled the trigger who is responsible...rather it is the team that made the mistaken identification.

Consider. You've been told that the man is one of the bombers. He's on a subway train. Are you going to tell him to not move and slowly place his hands on his head? If I have what I believe to be good reason, I'm not.


So your OK with state sponsored summary excecutions so long as they are for the right sort of people? :scrutiny:

Mistakes like this are exactly WHY we have due process. And no, there isnt a "good enough reason" to ignore it.

[dustind]

What the police did was like driving recklessly, even if they did not hit someone it would have be wrong. Recklessly causing an accident is a pretty big crime. Lying afterwards or running away (hit and run) is a much bigger crime.

Having people demonized after the fact or having facts exaggerated seems to be the norm. Look at any gun bust and how primers become "detonators" or "blasting caps", and how speaker wire becomes "bomb making equipment."

It seems that as time went on even pro-liberty minded people were starting to become comfortable with the idea of executing suspected terrorists on the spot if they did anything remotely suspicious. It is sad how easily "pro liberty" people are willing to give up. Just imagine what would happen if we where in a real all out war, or a bigger emergency happened (natural or man made) that killed a few million people. We would be screwed and the constitution would be long forgotten.

[Byron Quick]

So your OK with state sponsored summary excecutions so long as they are for the right sort of people?

You're considering terrorists as criminals who should have due process.

I think that is a mistake. I do not believe that this conflict will be won or eliminated by law enforcement under due process.

I believe that we are in a military conflict that will be won or eliminated by the military. When a soldier kills the enemy in war, do you consider that to be a summary execution? I don't.

The problem is two fold. One is that the quality of intelligence must be dramatically improved. The second is that this is a military problem. When the police identify a terrorist; the police need to contact the military.

In reply to your quote above...depends. If, in fact, he had been one of the bombers...unequivocally, yes. If you want due process; rob a bank without taking hostages.

I'm willing to play by rules as long as my opponents play by rules. If they want to rape, bomb, mutilate, and take my friends or family hostage...they don't want to be captured by me for I'll turn them into wallets.

I make no excuses or apologies. If you are my enemy; then it is to your benefit to play by civilized rules. For if you do; I will. If you choose to go the terror route; I guarantee you that I can terrorize you and yours more than you can terrorize me and mine. Your call. Make it. Now.

[enfield]

This incident was not a 'military situation'. This wasn't the British Army against the terrorists, it was British cops murdering an electrician.

And as far as military tactics go, I still maintain that if this had happened in Iraq, and a couple Marines had chased down an Iraqi, knocked him down and one held him while the other emptied a magazine into him, both would be court-martialed and convicted of murder, and the American press, the left and the Democrats (yes, I know that's redundant) would be screaming for the heads of the President, the Vice President, Don Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza Rice.

The Marines would have been court-martialed even if the victim turned out to be a terrorist, let alone a civilian.

[Joejojoba111]

You're right it really is frightening that people are not only OK with this, they grieve for the police and their suffering, poor chaps were given a bum steer. Let's send them some cookies. Let's send them on a vacation to Aruba, to cheer them up so they can don't feel bad about what they did.

Un freaking believable. I always suspected there were people like this out there, I just had no freaking idea how many there were. omg.


"You're considering terrorists as criminals who should have due process.
I think that is a mistake. I do not believe that this conflict will be won or eliminated by law enforcement under due process.
I believe that we are in a military conflict that will be won or eliminated by the military. When a soldier kills the enemy in war, do you consider that to be a summary execution? I don't."

That's it, the end of freedom as we know it. Just like that! Gosh darn this is infuriating. Every aspect of our society, everything that anything stood for, being re-labeled. Nooooo, those constitutional guarantees weren't supposed to protect you if you were suspected of being a terrorist! Read between the lines!


Ok sorry sorry, too infalmmatory. Calm, rational, collected. Byron, I'm not accusing or anything, just curious, if you were to put your reccommendations into writing, how would you change the constitution?

[Byron Quick]

This incident was not a 'military situation'. This wasn't the British Army against the terrorists, it was British cops murdering an electrician.

I know. Either you are missing my point or I am not communicating properly.

I am maintaining that there were two failures in this man's regrettable killing. The first was a pathetic failure of intelligence. The second was that it was being handled by the police.

I am not saying change the rules of due process for the police, people. Not even a little.

And I am not talking about killng someone you suspect is a terrorist. I'm talking about improving intelligence to the point that you know he's a terrorist...not suspect. And dealing with his military threat with the military.

Foreign nationals acting as agents of hostile foreign organizations using military grade ordnance and unconventional warfare to attack assets supporting US policy. Sounds like a military situation to me.

I wouldn't change the Constitution at all. I do not consider the Constitution or the Bill of Rights to be a suicide pact between US citizens.

To repeat, once again, for all those who have missed the oft repeated statement: I don't think this is a police problem and I don't think the police are the proper response to the problem. Therefore, constitutional limitations on police powers do not need to be altered. If what I have stated is examined, I also do not believe that the military should be given orders to kill everyone suspected of being a terrorist. I am talking about improving intelligence to the point that firm and definite identification is possible and then acting to neutralize the threat.

On the other hand, for everyone who thinks that dealing with a military threat with the military is a danger to liberty...tell you what, we'll establish a volunteer list. When a terrorist is positively identified; one of the civil liberty volunteer advocates will be sent in to talk the person into surrendering. All volunteers to protect their rights; please raise your hand...we're going to need a lot of you...replacement rates will be very high.

I'm not accusing or anything, just curious, if you were to put your reccommendations into writing, how would you change the constitution?

About the only change that I would make would be to the Second Amendment. And mainly by tacking on definitions to the thing for the purpose of making the government admit that it means what it says. (People: every US citizen. Infringed: regulation, taxation, confiscation, registration or any attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms by US citizens at any time or any place in US territory).

To reiterate, I don't think the police should be involved in terrorism at all except in two cases: forensic teams gathering evidence for intelligence purposes, and the building of cases against terrorists who have surrendered to the military. Since I don't think the police should have a primary role in the matter...I don't think that constitutional limitations on police need to be altered in any way, shape, or form.

[enfield]

Communication received --- I agree with you.

[GigaBuist]

Byron, your clarification helped much.

It seems that you're calling for limited martial law within the US, however, and I'm just not too sure how well that would work out. Certainly terorrism protection isn't an issue for the local PD -- but if our military was equipped to deal with it I think they should be doing it at the border.

The US military enforcing Federal laws within the borders gives me the willies. The US military trains troops to destroy things and kill people -- not to constrain themselves. They are not a police force; and were never intended to be a police force among a civilized population. We have laws against using the military as a police force for good reason.

As a whole I think we should be calling for stronger border security. Not only along Mexico, but with any flights coming into the US. Let's free up some men dealing with people flying from one state to another within the US and secure the borders. Militaries are good at the latter.

We simply don't have a good rubric for what defines a 'terrorist.' I don't have the exact text in front of me, but as I understand it the legal definition is somebody that endangers another's life in violation of Federal law. It's fairly broad, and not easy for me to search up as recent bills all read along the lines of "striking semicolon from section (a) and appending ...."

What a mess.

Looking at history, and weighing the odds, I have to say I'm more comfortable with dealing with rogue terrorists than a military police force.

Your ideas are good -- but I just can't figure how one would pull that off without stomping on an innocent person here and there.

[Byron Quick]

It seems that you're calling for limited martial law within the US, however, and I'm just not too sure how well that would work out. Certainly terorrism protection isn't an issue for the local PD -- but if our military was equipped to deal with it I think they should be doing it at the border.

I'm not really calling for martial law within the US and I'm certainly not saying we need to go to a Maginot Line mentality at our borders. I'm calling for identifying terrorists long before they reach our border and turning them into fertilizer. Military action beyond our borders against solidly identified enemies. Let the FBI keep looking for sleeper cells and terrorist sympathizers who hold US citizenship. But don't give them license to infringe upon our liberties. That cure is worse than the disease. If we destroy the organizations' roots...the branches and leaves will die.

[Joejojoba111]

I disagree on one point - I see no problem with a Maginot line! I don't see where it violates anything, it seems perfectly legitimate to me. And when you consider how much is spent or far more useless endeavors, a Maginot line is a good idea. At the very least it's legal, and is in keeping with what the founders intended. Furthermore it solves a very real problem with a practical and non-rights-infringing solution!

Want to hear the funny thing? If it was citizens who shoot a terrorist I sort of feel it's OK, but if it's police who do it I sort of feel it's not as OK. The way I see it is that the system has to be respected to work, police have to follow the rules 100%. Citizens are theoretically not as constrained, and if you kill a man who has wires sticking out of his bulky clothing, you could conceivably go to trial and be acquitted.

I just sort of feel that the agencies of the State should be held to a Higher standard than the citizenry. I don't see anything wrong with that. We're devolving power to these people, we are consenting to give them power, let's make them have to be More responsible than ordinary people.

Furthermore, police have many tools at their disposal that incapacitate better than bullets! if they Tazered the Brazilian guy he would have been incapacitated, hell they could have used a stun-gun.

[Byron Quick]

The problem of a Maginot Line concept has many facets.

Defense versus offense. With the Maginot Line, you are giving the initiative to the enemy. You are agreeing to fight on US soil. I want to fight on their soil. There will be collateral damage. Over there it will not be Americans. Over here it will be. Lack of flexibility. If I know what your defense is ahead of time...all that is necessary is to craft an offense that makes your fixed defense useless.

I don't want to defend over here with a static line. I want the best defense...a good offense...where the roots of the cancer hang out.

[c_yeager]

Im going to go print up a copy of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act and give it a big hug.

[beerslurpy]

All this military theory doesnt really make me comfortable with the idea of shooting an obviously innocent man who was doing nothing supicious.

[toivo]

British military and police have been shooting what they believe to be dangerous terrorists since the seventies.Yup. They shot 3 IRA operatives in Gibraltar in 1988. Very much a "shoot first and ask questions later" policy. Tensions were understandably high at the time, IRA bombings and all, and these people were not choirboys. The thing is that they were unarmed and had no bomb at the time they were shot. They were pretty clearly executed.

As for the latest incident, the question is this: How do you balance the fear of getting blown up by a terrorist with the fear of getting shot by the police because you happen to look like somebody? Which is preferable? And don't think that the Al Qaeda chiefs aren't loving every minute of this, saying to each other "Look how easy it is to make them freak out and start blowing each other away." They want to destabilize Western society. It looks like they're succeeding, and it's partly our fault for letting them. A hysterical reaction is worse than no reaction. Sometimes you have to take one on the chin.

And sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

[Orthonym]

In another thread, relying somewhat on media and police reports, I expressed anxiety that one could get shot dead, in the head, by policemen just for looking, acting, or dressing weirdly.

Apparently our Brazilian electrician was not only acting, but *was* normal. When accosted by the police, he approached them innocently.

So much for *acting normal* making one safe.

Hanged for a sheep, hanged for a lamb, what's the difference? If I be myself and follow my wyrd, at least I'll have a good time until they shoot me.

[Iain]

This was leaked information from an independent inquiry.

It isn't the whole story, nor is it the end of the story as far as potential prosecutions, resignations and changes of policy.

[enfield]

As a little sidenote, the REMNANTS of the Maginot Line, the Siegfried Line and the Bar Lev Line are monuments to military stupidity.

[Byron Quick]

Im going to go print up a copy of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act and give it a big hug.

*sigh* I'm not really sure if this is aimed at my stance on this matter. I'm not saying that the military should take over any aspect of law enforcement.

I'm saying that an organization of foreigners who wish to conduct military operations against US interests is not a law enforcement matter primarily...it is a military matter. Tell me, are there any clauses in the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that forbids the military from engaging in military operations? Hmmm? Another point: since I am talking about carrying the fight to the terrorists outside of the borders of the US in order to avoid having to fight them on US territory...please enlighten me on the particulars of the Posse Comitatus Act in this instance. Another point: a conventional foreign military force operating on US soil would be violating numerous federal and state statutes. Would it be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act to use the military to handle the matter or should we just send the police after the bridgade? :rolleyes:

All this military theory doesnt really make me comfortable with the idea of shooting an obviously innocent man who was doing nothing supicious.

Nor is its purpose to make you comfortable with the idea of shooting an obviously innocent man who was doing nothing suspicious. I wouldn't be comfortable with the police shooting a man who was acting suspicious...who decides. Please note that there was a pathetic intelligence failure in this case that has already been referred to.

As long as we have intelligence of this caliber and have the police involved...there will be more mistaken or careless shooting of innocents.

The Posse Comitatus Act placed restrictions on using the military for civil law enforcement purposes. Perhaps a new act is needed...one that places restrictions on using civil law enforcement for military purposes. The police do not have the training, organization, equipment, or mindset for such uses. Not to mention not having the numbers.

[The Real Hawkeye]

You're considering terrorists as criminals who should have due process.No! No one is a "terrorist" until proven so beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, having enjoyed all due process, by a jury of their peers. Until then, unless you personally see them committing a terrorist act, they are suspects, and presumed 100% innocent before the law. Therefore, to kill them is murder, plain and simple. They do not have the excuse of reasonable imminent fear for their lives, because they accosted him to start with. After which the victim behaved in a reasonable manner. No self defense here. No reasonable mistake. This was murder by cop. To put it another way, this was murder by government, which, by the way, is historically by far the most common kind of murder. This is, in fact, precisely why we have due process guarantees before cops are allowed to execute people for "being terrorists."

[kbr80]

Police keep 'shoot-to-kill' policy

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- London's police force has reviewed its controversial "shoot-to-kill" policy and left it largely unchanged despite the killing of a Brazilian mistaken for a would-be suicide bomber, Scotland Yard said on Saturday.

"We have reviewed it and we have made one or two small changes, but the operation remains essentially the same," a Metropolitan police spokeswoman told Reuters.

The spokeswoman declined to detail the changes, but London police chief Ian Blair said officers would continue to use deadly force to stop possible terror attacks.

"The methods that were used appeared to be the least worst option (for tackling suicide bombers) ... we still have the procedure in use," he told the Daily Mail.

A spokeswoman for the Association of Chief Police Officers, which issues the shoot-to-kill guidance, codenamed "Operation Kratos", said the overall policy was unaffected.

"They are going to make changes operationally, but they are not in a position to change the guidance. We are not changing it," she said.

Operation Kratos outlines what level of force officers can use to thwart what police call a "deadly and determined attack".

Public awareness of the policy only emerged after police shot Jean Charles de Menezes eight times at point blank range as he boarded an underground train on July 22, the day after four bombs failed to explode on the London's transport system.

De Menezes's family has called for Blair to resign. (Full story)

Len Duval, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority, which oversees policing in London, said there was a growing consensus for a public inquiry into the policy but it was a decision for the government.

"If greater oversight of operations provides public reassurance then that can only be a good thing," he told the Independent newspaper.

"But I urge caution ... The issue of suicide bombers is not going away and there needs to be an effective way of dealing with this threat."

At the time of the incident Blair said de Menezes was under surveillance as part of a manhunt to catch the four fleeing bombers and had not respond to police challenges.

Police admitted they had shot the wrong man and apologized.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/08/20/police.shooting.reut/index.html

[Byron Quick]

No! No one is a "terrorist" until proven so beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, having enjoyed all due process, by a jury of their peers. Until then, unless you personally see them committing a terrorist act, they are suspects, and presumed 100% innocent before the law.

So, if some tribesman comes traipsing into our embassy in Pakistan with a bulap sack and dumps bin Laden's head onto a table with a broad grin...we should turn him over to the tribal authorities to be prosecuted for murder, huh?

Please show me the relevant statutes or constitutional prohibitions that require that a person receive a jury trial before military action is taken against him. Now to make it as clear as possible: By military action; I do not mean that the military is taking any law enforcement activities whatsoever.

[The Real Hawkeye]

So, if some tribesman comes traipsing into our embassy in Pakistan with a bulap sack and dumps bin Laden's head onto a table with a broad grin...we should turn him over to the tribal authorities to be prosecuted for murder, huh?Byron, a tribesman is not a cop.Please show me the relevant statutes or constitutional prohibitions that require that a person receive a jury trial before military action is taken against him.The man shot in the subway was not shot by troops in the heat of battle. He was executed by police officers.Now to make it as clear as possible: By military action; I do not mean that the military is taking any law enforcement activities whatsoever.This was a law enforcement situation dealing with a civilian in a subway.

[Byron Quick]

This was a law enforcement situation dealing with a civilian in a subway.

Are you reading the entire thread or just responding to posts here and there?

I know it was cops who shot a civilian in a subway. I've stated so a couple of times already. YOOHOO!

I'm saying that the cops shouldn't have been involved in the first place...in several posts.

I also know that the tribesman is not a policeman. However, are you suggesting that the suspected terrorist only have the right to due process if it is the cops? If so, then we are somewhat in agreement for I stated to make terrorism a military area of operations. To reiterate once again, this does not mean dropping a smart bomb on the house of a suspected terrorist. This means jacking up the level of intelligence gathering on the suspected terrorist to the point that is is certain that he is or is not a terrorist. If he is...use military forces against him and cohorts, if any.

Tell you what: I'm going to cease responding to posts which display a lack of reading of this entire thread.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Are you reading the entire thread or just responding to posts here and there?This thread is clearly about the shooting by cops of a civilian.I know it was cops who shot a civilian in a subway. I've stated so a couple of times already. YOOHOO!

I'm saying that the cops shouldn't have been involved in the first place...in several posts.If soldiers are to do police work, they are bound by laws restraining the police. Dealing with criminals inside your own country (and terrorists are criminals) is police work.I also know that the tribesman is not a policeman. However, are you suggesting that the suspected terrorist only have the right to due process if it is the cops?Correct, private citizens, at least in the US, are not bound by the same restrictions as police because Constitutional restrictions are placed on the government and its agents, not on the citizenry. If non-government agents are acting within you national boarders, however, they are required to obey the law, which would preclude popping people without it being in self defense or defense of others from immanent serious bodily injury.If so, then we are somewhat in agreement for I stated to make terrorism a military area of operations. To reiterate once again, this does not mean dropping a smart bomb on the house of a suspected terrorist. This means jacking up the level of intelligence gathering on the suspected terrorist to the point that is is certain that he is or is not a terrorist. If he is...use military forces against him and cohorts, if any.Not a good idea to blend military action with police action within your national boarders. If, however, you do so, the military needs to be trained to understand that suspects have rights, and that every suspect is presumed innocent before the law. Therefore, they cannot simply eliminate a suspect because "he's a terrorist." He is in fact NOT a terrorist until he is deemed this by a court of law and by a jury of his peers. If he is in the act of committing terrorism, you may of course do what is necessary to stop him.Tell you what: I'm going to cease responding to posts which display a lack of reading of this entire thread.Nice way to wriggle your way out.

[c_yeager]

I'm saying that an organization of foreigners who wish to conduct military operations against US interests is not a law enforcement matter primarily...it is a military matter.

The problem is that when those people are mixed into the population of the United States one has to delicatly select who is who, and the military is *NOT* trained to pull that off. The police *ARE* trained to operate in a climate that includes a majority constitutionally protected noncombatants.

The overriding point is this: It is better to let one bus get bombed than to allow your country to descend to a point where it isnt worth defending. We start having to walk through military checkpoints while traveling within our own nation and we dont have anything left to fight for.

[Byron Quick]

Yes, folks. All that would be a problem if I had not stated before...multiple times...that the military should engage the terrorists organizations before thye reach the US. In other words, in other countries, outside of the US, overseas, etc.

Oh, I'm not trying to 'wiggle out' of anything. It's just tiresome to respond to posts whose content demonstrates that the entire thread has not been read by the poster. Go back, read the thread, and then post anythng you please-as long as the post demonstrates comprehension of the thread. I'll be here.

An earlier hypothetical case has been ignored. I'll revisit. A foreign military unit is on US soil in violation of multiple federal and state statutes. Are you going to send the military after them in violation of their rights to due process or are you going to send the police to arrest them? Remember, they are only suspects until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. How about after the military unit annihilates all the police units sent to arrest them? Are you going to violate their rights with the miltary at this point? Why? If not, when?

To reiterate for all the posters who haven't gotten it yet: 1)I know that the guy shot on the subway was shot by the police. 2)I think that we will continue to have more such shooting as long as the police have primary responsibility in handling terrorism within a country. 3)I am not endorsing having the military perform law enforcement duties within the country. 4) I AM stating that the view that terrorism is a law enforcement area of operations is wrong. I believe that terrorism is primarily a military area of operations with law enforcement support.

In response to the oft repeated statement that terrorism is against the law and so should be handled by law enforcement: Pancho Villa's crossing into US territory with an armed rabble was a violation of US laws and US sovereignty. The US responded by sending troops. Are you saying that we should have sent the police?

The problem is that when those people are mixed into the population of the United States one has to delicatly select who is who, and the military is *NOT* trained to pull that off. The police *ARE* trained to operate in a climate that includes a majority constitutionally protected noncombatants.

I believe that if we could conjure up the ghost of Mr. de Menezes that he would deny that the police *ARE* trained to operate in such a climate. But maybe not.

The overriding point is this: It is better to let one bus get bombed than to allow your country to descend to a point where it isnt worth defending. We start having to walk through military checkpoints while traveling within our own nation and we dont have anything left to fight for.

Interesting viewpoint. Tell me, have you ever told an Israeli that there is nothing left in Israel worth fighting for and that they should just give up? I'll bet it was an interesting discussion if it occurred. If it hasn't occurred, I've got a tip...don't start it:)

[The Real Hawkeye]

C. Yeager Said: The overriding point is this: It is better to let one bus get bombed than to allow your country to descend to a point where it isnt worth defending.I have been saying the same thing since 9/11.

[The Real Hawkeye]

An earlier hypothetical case has been ignored. I'll revisit. A foreign military unit is on US soil in violation of multiple federal and state statutes. Are you going to send the military after them in violation of their rights to due process or are you going to send the police to arrest them? Remember, they are only suspects until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.So, these people are wearing military uniforms identifying them as soldiers of nation X, and using conventional combat methods to attack America? In that case, it is for the militia to deal with them (at least initially), and if there is no militia force able to, then the regular military needs to deal with them as soon as they can muster. If, however, they are not identifiable as military targets, they are for the police (or for the police in conjunction with the local militia) to deal with, because it must first be determined that they are not in fact innocent noncombatants, deserving of all the protections against government violations of rights provided for in the Constitution.

Naturally, even without uniforms, if the militia/police have already legitimately engaged them, and they ignore police orders to cease and desist hostilities, they become perfectly legitimate military targets if they prove too much for the police and the militia to handle.How about after the military unit annihilates all the police units sent to arrest them?Ideally, uniformed regulars of nation X will first be responded to by local militia units (you and I with our own privately owned arms), until the regular military or National Guard is able to respond to the situation. If the militia, however, has been outlawed (unconstitutionally), then the cops will have to do the best they can till the regular troops arrive.Are you going to violate their rights with the military at this point?Uniformed invaders of nation X have no right not to be responded to by military forces.Why?Because if a uniformed military invades another nation, that attacked nation has every right to respond to it with its own military force.If not, when?Then.

The main point you need to keep in mind is that inside your own country, the most deadly dangerous organization by far is our own government. This is why the Founders bound it in the chains of the Constitution. You don't keep a puppy in chains, but you do keep a ferocious lion in chains. Why? Because if he's not in chains, he is very likely to go around devouring people at random, and generally making life a living hell for everyone he comes in contact with. Government is that lion. Properly controlled, and (when absolutely necessary) loosed from its chains, from time to time, against our external enemies, it actually serves us a great benefit, but even then, it is always deadly dangerous to its keepers, and we must reserve the ability to quickly restrain it again (Think Gladiator, the lion scene). You don't seem to get that.

[iapetus]

Also bear in mind:

The first set of bombers (the ones that actually blew stuff up) were British citizens.

The seconds set (the ones that failed) were, IIRC, here legally.

The former could not be described as "foreign military", and I doubt the later could be either.

[beerslurpy]

The main point you need to keep in mind is that inside your own country, the most deadly dangerous organization by far is our own government. This is why the Founders bound it in the chains of the Constitution. You don't keep a puppy in chains, but you do keep a ferocious lion in chains. Why? Because if he's not in chains, he is very likely to go around devouring people at random, and generally making life a living hell for everyone he comes in contact with. Government is that lion. Properly controlled, and (when absolutely necessary) loosed from its chains, from time to time, against our external enemies, it actually serves us a great benefit, but even then, it is always deadly dangerous to its keepers, and we must reserve the ability to quickly restrain it again (Think Gladiator, the lion scene). You don't seem to get that.

Yay for truth.

[p35]

Let me pose another hypothetical:

An American soldier is going down a road in Baghdad, manning the machine gun on his Humvee. He sees an Iraqi in civvies on the side of the road, and for the sake of argument the guy's wearing a thick jacket but no obvious weapons in sight. He yells "I think that guy's got a bomb!" and nails him with a burst from his MG.

What's going to happen to him if it turns out the Iraqi was minding his own business? If they do find a bomb under his clothes?

[The Real Hawkeye]

Let me pose another hypothetical:

An American soldier is going down a road in Baghdad, manning the machine gun on his Humvee. He sees an Iraqi in civvies on the side of the road, and for the sake of argument the guy's wearing a thick jacket but no obvious weapons in sight. He yells "I think that guy's got a bomb!" and nails him with a burst from his MG.

What's going to happen to him if it turns out the Iraqi was minding his own business?If he was not in fact a terrorist, the determination whether or not a war crime was committed will depend on whether a reasonable person in that war zone, similarly situated, would have reacted in the same way to those circumstances. The way this is determined is by a trial (in this case, in a military court).If they do find a bomb under his clothes?Then he obviously made the right call.

[Byron Quick]

So the German soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge who wore American uniforms actually should have been arrested by the police. We violated their rights when we killed them because we only suspected they weren't Americans. What was the test often used? Questions about American baseball players? A egregious violation of the basic human rights of these suspects who clearly deserved their day in court.

[p35]

Actually, Byron, I think most of them had some sort of court-martial before meeting the firing squad. Some may have been shot out of hand, but I don't think they were the majority.

[c_yeager]

So the German soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge who wore American uniforms actually should have been arrested by the police.

The Battle of the Bulge did not occur on our own soil involving people that we willingly allowed in our country, thats a pretty significant difference.

[The Real Hawkeye]

So the German soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge who wore American uniforms actually should have been arrested by the police. We violated their rights when we killed them because we only suspected they weren't Americans. What was the test often used? Questions about American baseball players? A egregious violation of the basic human rights of these suspects who clearly deserved their day in court.My two friends have done a good job of answering you already, so I will leave it at that, unless you'd like further clarification.