Gunsnrovers
Member
If you'll go up to the post above that points out the police procedure of the head shot, you'll get your answer.
British police shoot suicide bomber at Stockwell station (merged)
- Thread starter agricola
- Start date
- Status
K-Romulus
Member
Glad I don't live in the UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4713199.stm
Police leaders say they will not abandon their "shoot-to-kill" policy and warn more innocent people could be killed in the fight against terrorism.
The message came after Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot dead by officers after being mistaken for a suicide bomber.
Met Police Chief Sir Ian Blair said "shoot-to-kill in order to protect" would continue, despite the "tragedy".
The burden of this policy will fall on the people of South Asian descent, and others who "look" like them, as Mr. de Menezes has learned. That is, unless those folks wear a speedo and flip-flops while out in public to keep from "appearing suspicious."
Remember, this "shoot to kill"policy is apparently maintained with the full support of the UK people. Those attitudes I describe in my title now get the color of law.
I keep hearing about how there is a free democratic society over there in the UK that respects the individual. . . but now the UK's minority groups are literally being sacrified for the good of the majority . . .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4713199.stm
Police leaders say they will not abandon their "shoot-to-kill" policy and warn more innocent people could be killed in the fight against terrorism.
The message came after Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot dead by officers after being mistaken for a suicide bomber.
Met Police Chief Sir Ian Blair said "shoot-to-kill in order to protect" would continue, despite the "tragedy".
The burden of this policy will fall on the people of South Asian descent, and others who "look" like them, as Mr. de Menezes has learned. That is, unless those folks wear a speedo and flip-flops while out in public to keep from "appearing suspicious."
Remember, this "shoot to kill"policy is apparently maintained with the full support of the UK people. Those attitudes I describe in my title now get the color of law.
I keep hearing about how there is a free democratic society over there in the UK that respects the individual. . . but now the UK's minority groups are literally being sacrified for the good of the majority . . .
Last edited:
gc70
Member
K-Romulus, there's really no need to make this an issue of racism. Dark-skinned people at at risk today because those are the kinds of people who recently did bad things. A few years ago, it was Irish lads. Who knows who it might be tomorrow.
K-Romulus
Member
just the facts, ma'am
But thanks for your comment. I'm mad as
about what happened, and take it personally because of my own physical appearance. From your advice, I toned down the title. 
After the Tim McVeigh episode, weren't "white guys" classified as enemy number 1 in the US? And the pattern was repeated during the DC sniper days. Woe to the "white guy" driving a van around these parts.
Maybe you don't remember, but after Sept. 11, 2001, I couldn't turn on the radio or watch a "town hall meeting" on TV without hearing a not insubstantial number of people calling for internment camps for "muslims." I remember, because that was when I bought my first firearm lest I get lynched for "looking suspicious."
I'm just calling it as I see it in the UK, with some historical context thrown in concerning the Victorian Colonial-era attitudes that are arguably still present over there.
"Who knows who it might be tomorrow" is exactly my point. Should a government get the green light to sacrifice individuals as a matter of policy to protect the majority? To put it in a gun owner context, should self defense firearms be banned everywhere because someone, somewhere, might misuse one?
But thanks for your comment. I'm mad as
about what happened, and take it personally because of my own physical appearance. From your advice, I toned down the title. After the Tim McVeigh episode, weren't "white guys" classified as enemy number 1 in the US? And the pattern was repeated during the DC sniper days. Woe to the "white guy" driving a van around these parts.
Maybe you don't remember, but after Sept. 11, 2001, I couldn't turn on the radio or watch a "town hall meeting" on TV without hearing a not insubstantial number of people calling for internment camps for "muslims." I remember, because that was when I bought my first firearm lest I get lynched for "looking suspicious."
I'm just calling it as I see it in the UK, with some historical context thrown in concerning the Victorian Colonial-era attitudes that are arguably still present over there.
"Who knows who it might be tomorrow" is exactly my point. Should a government get the green light to sacrifice individuals as a matter of policy to protect the majority? To put it in a gun owner context, should self defense firearms be banned everywhere because someone, somewhere, might misuse one?
All else has been effectively hashed out, save for one contextual bit that I consider highly relative.
This being the UK, the poor sodder didn't have the legal or physical means to do so, but for the sake of the argument, where would this go if say... NYPD/LAPD, etc - attempted such a thing on a CCW holder ?
If five guys in plain clothes whipped out iron and threw down on me like that I would assume they were hostile and act appropriately - let's be frank, sad that it is, in the situation as described, NOTHING that man did was gonna save his life.
I for one, in said situation, would ensure that I did not reach the afterlife alone - no matter if they were just doing their job or not.
It's a pretty horrifying thought even so, but if our police and security forces are going to adopt a kill-first, no questions policy - where does that leave us who carry ?
What would YOUR response be to a (let's be brutally frank here) death squad ?
Like it or not, if this is the kind of policy that's going to be adopted, these are questions you will HAVE to consider and ponder, sorry to force them to your attention, but that's the way it is.
-K
This being the UK, the poor sodder didn't have the legal or physical means to do so, but for the sake of the argument, where would this go if say... NYPD/LAPD, etc - attempted such a thing on a CCW holder ?
If five guys in plain clothes whipped out iron and threw down on me like that I would assume they were hostile and act appropriately - let's be frank, sad that it is, in the situation as described, NOTHING that man did was gonna save his life.
I for one, in said situation, would ensure that I did not reach the afterlife alone - no matter if they were just doing their job or not.
It's a pretty horrifying thought even so, but if our police and security forces are going to adopt a kill-first, no questions policy - where does that leave us who carry ?
What would YOUR response be to a (let's be brutally frank here) death squad ?
Like it or not, if this is the kind of policy that's going to be adopted, these are questions you will HAVE to consider and ponder, sorry to force them to your attention, but that's the way it is.
-K
Too Many Choices!?
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 763
Gunsnrovers,
Your opinion plus $1 will get you a lottery ticket too ... With the little amount of intel that was had on this guy, I still say grab him and take your chances going boom, but again that takes a ,"Brass Pair". Eventually the plain-clothes officers had to grab the guy anyway(after chasing him onto a frickin train:banghead:, so the plan failed), so again, what is so wrong with grabbing a SUSPECTED suicide bomber. There are only two main outcomes really. One, the police are fast, hit hard, and the suspected suicide bomber is found out to be Joe Shmoe from Brazil before he can run onto a crowded train forcing the officers hand(nobody dies, no harm no foul). Two, the officers hit fast, hard, and the guy is an ACTUAL suicide bomber and A) The guy gets tackled and a gun in his face so fast he can't react even if he wanted to kill himself(great policing + Brass Pair) or B) the human bomb goes off when he is grabbed(keeping him from his intended target area and some of the public). If you know for FACT the guy IS a SUICIDE BOMBER(see the difference? SUSPECTED suicide bomber and ACTUAL suicide bomber?) I want the guy dropped on the spot, preferably with a head shot from a highpowered rifle so the guy doesn't know what hit him. Now what we do with SUSPECTED suicide bombers is up for debate, but what we do with actual KNOWN suicide bombers is a totally different matter. What is the cost of an innocent life taken by those supposed to protect said life? I don't want to die, but if I had to go I would rather be taken out by one of,"Them",(whoever that is at the time) rather than by someone who is sworn to "Protect and serve" the public, is this just me
? Next time Gunsnrovers, please give me your reasoning behind why I am wrong instead of trying to dismiss my argument for lack of your own ability to reason.
:banghead:
Your opinion plus $1 will get you a lottery ticket too
... With the little amount of intel that was had on this guy, I still say grab him and take your chances going boom, but again that takes a ,"Brass Pair". Eventually the plain-clothes officers had to grab the guy anyway(after chasing him onto a frickin train:banghead:, so the plan failed), so again, what is so wrong with grabbing a SUSPECTED suicide bomber. There are only two main outcomes really. One, the police are fast, hit hard, and the suspected suicide bomber is found out to be Joe Shmoe from Brazil before he can run onto a crowded train forcing the officers hand(nobody dies, no harm no foul). Two, the officers hit fast, hard, and the guy is an ACTUAL suicide bomber and A) The guy gets tackled and a gun in his face so fast he can't react even if he wanted to kill himself(great policing + Brass Pair) or B) the human bomb goes off when he is grabbed(keeping him from his intended target area and some of the public). If you know for FACT the guy IS a SUICIDE BOMBER(see the difference? SUSPECTED suicide bomber and ACTUAL suicide bomber?) I want the guy dropped on the spot, preferably with a head shot from a highpowered rifle so the guy doesn't know what hit him. Now what we do with SUSPECTED suicide bombers is up for debate, but what we do with actual KNOWN suicide bombers is a totally different matter. What is the cost of an innocent life taken by those supposed to protect said life? I don't want to die, but if I had to go I would rather be taken out by one of,"Them",(whoever that is at the time) rather than by someone who is sworn to "Protect and serve" the public, is this just me? Next time Gunsnrovers, please give me your reasoning behind why I am wrong instead of trying to dismiss my argument for lack of your own ability to reason.:banghead:
dustind
Member
This forum is just depressing. I am amazed at how many people have admitted in this thread and others how badly they want to throw away the Bill of Rights in the hope that it might help just a little in saving them from their bogey man of the week.
You guys are responding to terrorist attacks the same way antis respond to accidental shootings. We should not turn our lives upside down because something not even close to the top ten list of causes of death happens to coincide with something we hate.
I hate terrorists as much as the next guy, but worrying about terror attacks is like worrying about lightning strikes. Yes the government should try and stop terrorists, but there is no need to destroy our selves in the process. Even if you do not care about rights, the cost benefit of what we and especially Britain are doing is just not there.
Britain's police say they may need to kill more innocent people to save innocent people. They also seemed to have taken their time admitting he was not the bomber, and that there was no evidence save for some very flimsy circumstantial stuff, that he was.
I do not think the guy acted unreasonably. If I was unarmed and a group of men dressed in normal clothes where chasing me, I would run for my life, preferably into a crowd where I am a bit safer.
You guys are responding to terrorist attacks the same way antis respond to accidental shootings. We should not turn our lives upside down because something not even close to the top ten list of causes of death happens to coincide with something we hate.
I hate terrorists as much as the next guy, but worrying about terror attacks is like worrying about lightning strikes. Yes the government should try and stop terrorists, but there is no need to destroy our selves in the process. Even if you do not care about rights, the cost benefit of what we and especially Britain are doing is just not there.
Britain's police say they may need to kill more innocent people to save innocent people.
They also seemed to have taken their time admitting he was not the bomber, and that there was no evidence save for some very flimsy circumstantial stuff, that he was. I do not think the guy acted unreasonably. If I was unarmed and a group of men dressed in normal clothes where chasing me, I would run for my life, preferably into a crowd where I am a bit safer.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
I agree. The problem is what middle ground will be effective in preventing a suicide bomber from detonating his device.
In the totality of the circumstances; I believe that the Brazilian young man panicked. Personally, if I was in London and was accosted by a group of well dressed and well groomed men waving pistols...I would stand still and wait for the men who I assume to be police to come up to me. But then I have a habit of finding out patterns of police behavior where ever I happen to be.
A question for Englishmen on the board: Do London plainclothes police dress and groom themselves in a similar manner as London criminals bent on assault and robbery? When was the last time that there was a robbery in broad daylight in London conducted by a mob waving pistols?
It's the same when I am stopped by an officer in traffic. My insurance and driver's license is in my breast pocket. I won't be shot while reaching into the glove compartment for I have taken the foresight not to have to reach into the glove compartment. I keep my hands in open view at all times. My wrists are either resting on the window sill of my car door with my hands outside of the vehicle in plain sight...or my hands are on the steering wheel at 1000 and 1400. I avoid any type of rapid movement. Given the history of traffic stop police fatalities; I want the officer to be very comfortable. I work at that.
Situational awareness entails more than simply being aware of your surroundings. It involves what is going on in many areas that impinge on your locale.
RevDisk
Member
Funny how people show their true colors, eh?
Khaotic brings up a good point. While self-defense is apparently not as much of an issue in the UK, if such a "Shoot on sight" order was given in the US... What of self-defense when a person credibly believes the "security personnel" will execute them regardless of guilt or innocence? Is not a person entitled to use of lethal force in self-defense when a group of persons is attempting to kill them?
In the UK shooting, the shooters were not in uniform, and many witnesses are saying they did not identify themselves. They executed him on the ground. In the name of "protecting innocent lives". How poetically cynical.
I've seen examples of criminals dressed up as police before. If someone not in a uniform claims to be police, I will ask to see a badge before I even consider cooperating. Circumstances permitting, I'll call in to make sure it's who they claim to be. To give credit where it is due, I've mostly gotten respectful understanding from the police officers while I verified their identity.
If I see a group of unknown persons pull out guns and believe they intend to execute me on the spot, I'd have to be flat out insane to lie on the floor and wait for the bullet to the brain. I may or may not survive, but if I can take some folks bent on murder to the grave with me or at least die trying, I believe I'll get a pleasant reception in Valhalla.
Reminds me, I need to either start carrying more magazines for my current CCW pistol or look into other options. I never thought "official death squads" armed with a "license to kill" would ever be a concern. Previously, I had believed it mostly restrained to certain third world countries and bad movies. My, how the world changes. And not always for the better. I do hope they keep these wannabe Bond's and his "license to kill" on the opposite side of the pond.
I'm a thousand times more likely to die from cancer or an auto accident than terrorism. I do not see the wisdom of giving flat out carte blanche death warrants to unnamed government folks over a handful of tragic deaths. The fact that certain folks on this board cheer on such actions is rather disquietting.
agricola
Member
For heavens sake, you would think that the cops had put him up against a wall, conducted a show trial in public and then shot him, judging by some of the comments here.
Lets recap the story. The Police are watching a building which they know is linked to the 21st July attempted murders (from details contained within the rucksack left at Oval tube station - one of the pecularities about this is that the perps (the 7th July bombers especially) have left their details at the scene of the explosions). They spot a guy coming out of the building, who is wearing a thick coat and baseball cap on what is a hot day.
They then proceed to tail him, onto a bus from Tulse Hill which eventually drops him at Stockwell. They can see the guy is carrying something (witnesses say wires may have been protruding from it, and it turns out it is a fire alarm that he is on his way to it) but arent close enough to spot exactly what it is. At some point between him getting off the bus, and him starting to run, a decision is either made to stop him, or (as likely) he spots the tail and runs towards and into the tube station, ignoring the shouted commands to stop.
For those that dont know London, Stockwell Tube is on the Northern and Victoria Lines, it is the tube station immediately next to Oval (where, the day before, a bomb was left).
Its two weeks since 52 people and 4 scum died when the scum blew up bombs, three of which on the tube and one on a bus.
Its the day after a repeat attack where another four bombs were planted, and only through the grace of God, and the incompetence of the bombers, they fail to detonate properly. One bomber (at the Oval) sat next to a mother with her baby in a pram waiting for it to go off.
Challenges are shouted, but the guy continues to run, vaults over the ticket barrier and heads down to the Northern Line platform, still failing to stop. As he gets onto a train, he stumbles and as one officer lands on top of him, another officer shoots him five times in the head and back.
I am unaware of any crimes committed in the past by twenty-odd white men, some in Police uniform, all of whom are armed and who challenge poor Brazilian electricians in an attempt to rob / murder them.
The kid ran in absolutely the worst direction he could ever have hoped to run in, given what they were trying to stop him for. Why he ran is something we will never know, but it should not be the "Its all the fault of the JBTs!!!!". Its hard to see what else they could have done in the circumstances - would any of you willingly put yourself in the same circumstances? Where you honestly believe that a guy is about to throw himself onto a tube train and blow you, everyone around you and everyone on the train up?
Read this , found via Michelle Malkin's blog.
Lets recap the story. The Police are watching a building which they know is linked to the 21st July attempted murders (from details contained within the rucksack left at Oval tube station - one of the pecularities about this is that the perps (the 7th July bombers especially) have left their details at the scene of the explosions). They spot a guy coming out of the building, who is wearing a thick coat and baseball cap on what is a hot day.
They then proceed to tail him, onto a bus from Tulse Hill which eventually drops him at Stockwell. They can see the guy is carrying something (witnesses say wires may have been protruding from it, and it turns out it is a fire alarm that he is on his way to it) but arent close enough to spot exactly what it is. At some point between him getting off the bus, and him starting to run, a decision is either made to stop him, or (as likely) he spots the tail and runs towards and into the tube station, ignoring the shouted commands to stop.
For those that dont know London, Stockwell Tube is on the Northern and Victoria Lines, it is the tube station immediately next to Oval (where, the day before, a bomb was left).
Its two weeks since 52 people and 4 scum died when the scum blew up bombs, three of which on the tube and one on a bus.
Its the day after a repeat attack where another four bombs were planted, and only through the grace of God, and the incompetence of the bombers, they fail to detonate properly. One bomber (at the Oval) sat next to a mother with her baby in a pram waiting for it to go off.
Challenges are shouted, but the guy continues to run, vaults over the ticket barrier and heads down to the Northern Line platform, still failing to stop. As he gets onto a train, he stumbles and as one officer lands on top of him, another officer shoots him five times in the head and back.
I am unaware of any crimes committed in the past by twenty-odd white men, some in Police uniform, all of whom are armed and who challenge poor Brazilian electricians in an attempt to rob / murder them.
The kid ran in absolutely the worst direction he could ever have hoped to run in, given what they were trying to stop him for. Why he ran is something we will never know, but it should not be the "Its all the fault of the JBTs!!!!". Its hard to see what else they could have done in the circumstances - would any of you willingly put yourself in the same circumstances? Where you honestly believe that a guy is about to throw himself onto a tube train and blow you, everyone around you and everyone on the train up?
Read this , found via Michelle Malkin's blog.
Lone_Gunman
Member
I am not sure that in the heat of the moment that kind of question crosses the mind of someone who thinks he is about to be assaulted.
I don't remember the last time a mob waving pistols tried to assault someone here in broad daylight, but if it were to happen to me today, I would either run to get away, or shoot back.
On September 10, when was the last time a group of men seized three airplanes and flew them into buildings? My point is, events in the past do not necessarily predict events in the future.
In any case, shooting innocent people, whether they run or not, might work in England, but will fail miserably in the US. The civil liability will be immense, lawyers will be standing in line for these cases, and the lawyers will sue cities until the policy is changed.
Chris Rhines
Member
That's exactly what the cops did, except that the wall was a floor, and they didn't bother with a show trial.
Quit trying to blame the victim for his murder. It's unseemly.
- Chris
Lone_Gunman
Member
Even the London police department is admitting "full responsibility". It is hard to argue that they are not at fault if they themselves are admitting they messed up. Blaming the victim in this case is ridiculous.
Graystar
Member
In London the max temp on Friday the 22nd was 69 degrees. Low was 52.
If I was going someplace and expected to come back at night, I'd probably wear a light coat. Maybe the coat was all he had.
Gunsnrovers
Member
Too Many Choices!?, I guess you're playing the lottery as well.
I wasn't aware that your comments were anything other then the expulsions found on the south side of a north facing cow.
I wasn't aware that your comments were anything other then the expulsions found on the south side of a north facing cow.
Kobun
Member
Good one!
Seems like he may have been running because his visa had expired.
If you quack like a duck loud enough, you just might get shot when its hunting season.
I wouldn't blame the police even if this had been a friend of mine. You get judged for your actions.
Yeah, people showing their "true colors" indeed............
For civilians in the US, the standard to shoot and kill somebody else is if you are in reasonable fear that in the next few moments somebody is about to kill you or injure you so badly that you will likely die. Or, somebody is about to do the same to another person in your immediate presence.
Under those circumstances, you can shoot away.
In most US states, the standard for shooting an intruder in your house is even lower.
For example, in my own state of Arkansas, you may shoot an intruder in your house for no other reason than he is there, in your house. His mere presence in your house is reason enough to justify shooting him, under Arkansas law.
He doesn't have to verbally threaten you. His presence alone is a threat. In Arkansas, your own home is literally a "free fire" zone.
The standard the British cops used in this tragic incident is EXACTLY, and I do mean EXACTLY the same one used for American civilians who shoot in self-defense.
The Brit cops had a whole set of good reasons to honestly think this young Brazilian was a suicide bomber: The house he left, the way he was dressed, his behavior, his flight to the subway....all of these things added together were reason enough to reasonably believe he was a bomber, especially considering that the subway had been bombed only 24 hours earlier, and was the second such bombing in two weeks, and the bombers from the day before were still at large.
A suicide bomber is a clear danger to everyone around him for several yards. All a suicide bomber has to do is twitch a finger and everyone for several yards in all directions is instantly dead.
A suicide bomber is also a lot more free to act because he isn't scared by any threats of deadly force....you know, that whole "suicide" part of being a suicide bomber? Threats of death don't scare suicide bombers....they've already overcome that whole "death" thing, remember? That's why they are called "suicide" bombers........
A suicide bomber can trigger his weapon even if several police are piled on top of him. All he needs is one free finger.
If you are faced with a person that you have good logical reasons to think is a suicide bomber, there can be one, and only one course of action.
You must destroy his central nervous system before he can twitch his finger and trigger his bomb.
The police here acted in the moment on the information they had and made a choice.
Unfortunately, they had the wrong man because a whole set of circumstances led to a tragic case of mistaken identity.
They had reasonable cause to see this man as a clear and present danger to themselves, and to every single person on that train car, and they acted. Even when down and under a pile of cops, a suicide bomber can still blow up his bomb.
Because they had the wrong man, a tragedy ensued.
This situation is sort of like the cops who mistakenly shoot kids who "threaten" them with toy guns in a dark alley or room. They act on the info they have in the moment and do what they reasonably believe they have to do. They see a gun, and do the reasonable thing and defend themselves. But the circumstances cause a tragedy.
This situation is like civilians who shoot people they thought were legitimate threats but who turned out not to be. The civilians act on the info they have in the moment and do what they reasonably believe they have to do. A tragedy ensues because reality does not allow time to play "20 questions" with who appears to be an immediate threat right then and there.
And in one way, this situation is different from cops who mistakenly shoot kids with toy guns, or civilians who mistakenly shoot people they think are threats because in this case, the stakes were even higher.
These Brit cops did not shoot this man in the head because they thought they were saving themselves. They shot this man in the head because they thought they were saving every single person on that subway car.
These British cops used exactly the same set of standards in shooting this unfortunate man that American civilians are required to put into action......reasonable fear that the man was an immediate danger and capable of killing people in the next few seconds. Unfortunately, they had the wrong man.
hillbilly
For civilians in the US, the standard to shoot and kill somebody else is if you are in reasonable fear that in the next few moments somebody is about to kill you or injure you so badly that you will likely die. Or, somebody is about to do the same to another person in your immediate presence.
Under those circumstances, you can shoot away.
In most US states, the standard for shooting an intruder in your house is even lower.
For example, in my own state of Arkansas, you may shoot an intruder in your house for no other reason than he is there, in your house. His mere presence in your house is reason enough to justify shooting him, under Arkansas law.
He doesn't have to verbally threaten you. His presence alone is a threat. In Arkansas, your own home is literally a "free fire" zone.
The standard the British cops used in this tragic incident is EXACTLY, and I do mean EXACTLY the same one used for American civilians who shoot in self-defense.
The Brit cops had a whole set of good reasons to honestly think this young Brazilian was a suicide bomber: The house he left, the way he was dressed, his behavior, his flight to the subway....all of these things added together were reason enough to reasonably believe he was a bomber, especially considering that the subway had been bombed only 24 hours earlier, and was the second such bombing in two weeks, and the bombers from the day before were still at large.
A suicide bomber is a clear danger to everyone around him for several yards. All a suicide bomber has to do is twitch a finger and everyone for several yards in all directions is instantly dead.
A suicide bomber is also a lot more free to act because he isn't scared by any threats of deadly force....you know, that whole "suicide" part of being a suicide bomber? Threats of death don't scare suicide bombers....they've already overcome that whole "death" thing, remember? That's why they are called "suicide" bombers........
A suicide bomber can trigger his weapon even if several police are piled on top of him. All he needs is one free finger.
If you are faced with a person that you have good logical reasons to think is a suicide bomber, there can be one, and only one course of action.
You must destroy his central nervous system before he can twitch his finger and trigger his bomb.
The police here acted in the moment on the information they had and made a choice.
Unfortunately, they had the wrong man because a whole set of circumstances led to a tragic case of mistaken identity.
They had reasonable cause to see this man as a clear and present danger to themselves, and to every single person on that train car, and they acted. Even when down and under a pile of cops, a suicide bomber can still blow up his bomb.
Because they had the wrong man, a tragedy ensued.
This situation is sort of like the cops who mistakenly shoot kids who "threaten" them with toy guns in a dark alley or room. They act on the info they have in the moment and do what they reasonably believe they have to do. They see a gun, and do the reasonable thing and defend themselves. But the circumstances cause a tragedy.
This situation is like civilians who shoot people they thought were legitimate threats but who turned out not to be. The civilians act on the info they have in the moment and do what they reasonably believe they have to do. A tragedy ensues because reality does not allow time to play "20 questions" with who appears to be an immediate threat right then and there.
And in one way, this situation is different from cops who mistakenly shoot kids with toy guns, or civilians who mistakenly shoot people they think are threats because in this case, the stakes were even higher.
These Brit cops did not shoot this man in the head because they thought they were saving themselves. They shot this man in the head because they thought they were saving every single person on that subway car.
These British cops used exactly the same set of standards in shooting this unfortunate man that American civilians are required to put into action......reasonable fear that the man was an immediate danger and capable of killing people in the next few seconds. Unfortunately, they had the wrong man.
hillbilly
Master Blaster
Member
The police failed miserably in doing their job on this one.
They let this guy get all the way to the subway before they stopped him.
If he had been a real suicide bomber he could have blown himself up and killed a large number of folks in the subway. They should have grabbed him or shot him much sooner than they did.
If they grabbed him and had him pinned already, and there was no earth shattering KABOOM why didnt they look to see if he had a vest before they shot him???? IF he knew something wouldn't he have been much more valuable alive than dead?????
Always easy to second guess.
Hopefully this will be thuroughly investigated, and the officers' mistakes will be scrutinized so they can learn something from it.
What if a gang of soccer fans had seen this gent and thought he might be a bomber for the same reasons as the police, and they had jumped on him and beatten the crawp out of him???? My guess is that they would now all be in jail and in serious trouble.
K-Romulus
Member
surely you jest
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1535190,00.html?gusrc=rss
'Bombers, racists, the law: they're all out to get Muslims'
Sunday July 24, 2005
Fears of an anti-Muslim backlash have been realised in a 500-per-cent rise in faith-hate crimes in the past two weeks. More than 1,000 race and faith hate incidents have been reported to police across the country since the London bombings, though community leaders believe the actual number of incidents is at least four times higher.
Most of the reported crimes are 'low-level' attacks such as graffiti and verbal abuse. However, race monitoring groups across the UK have seen a significant increase in the number of reports of arson attacks on mosques and Muslim women being spat at in the street or not being allowed on buses because they were wearing headscarves.
Police are investigating several serious assaults and one murder related to the backlash. Although most incidents have taken place in and around London, police or community groups across the country have reported a rise in Islamophobic-motivated attacks.
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1527336,00.html
Calls for calm as fear of severe backlash grows
Wednesday July 13, 2005
The Guardian has learned that since (the July 7) bombings police have recorded 300 hate crime incidents, including the killing of a man in Nottingham after anti-Muslim abuse was shouted at him.
and
http://society.guardian.co.uk/emergencyplanning/story/0,14501,1529184,00.html
Far right and football gangs plot 'revenge'
Anti-Muslim websites monitored
Friday July 15, 2005
Plans by an alliance of rightwing extremists and football hooligans to exact "revenge" on Muslims after last week's bomb attacks are being monitored by police.
The Guardian has learned that extremists are keen to cause widespread fear and injury with attacks on mosques and high-profile "anti-Muslim" events in the capital.
Football hooligans communicating over the internet have spoken of the need to put aside partisan support for teams and unite against Muslims. Hooligans from West Ham, Millwall, Crystal Palace and Arsenal are among those seeking to establish common cause.
Someone ostensibly from the UK has never heard of the football hooliganism phenomena?
If this Brazilian guy was such an "imminent threat," can someone explain why he was allowed to get onto a bus? What will happen in a few months, say October, when EVERYONE is wearing a jacket over in the UK? And I guess this also means that anyone coming out of an apartment building where suspected "terrorists" may live is to be shot on sight, just as if that person had kicked in your front door at 2am?!
This thread has taken up too much of my time as it is. I have said my peace on this incident. Others will have their say. So be it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1535190,00.html?gusrc=rss
'Bombers, racists, the law: they're all out to get Muslims'
Sunday July 24, 2005
Fears of an anti-Muslim backlash have been realised in a 500-per-cent rise in faith-hate crimes in the past two weeks. More than 1,000 race and faith hate incidents have been reported to police across the country since the London bombings, though community leaders believe the actual number of incidents is at least four times higher.
Most of the reported crimes are 'low-level' attacks such as graffiti and verbal abuse. However, race monitoring groups across the UK have seen a significant increase in the number of reports of arson attacks on mosques and Muslim women being spat at in the street or not being allowed on buses because they were wearing headscarves.
Police are investigating several serious assaults and one murder related to the backlash. Although most incidents have taken place in and around London, police or community groups across the country have reported a rise in Islamophobic-motivated attacks.
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1527336,00.html
Calls for calm as fear of severe backlash grows
Wednesday July 13, 2005
The Guardian has learned that since (the July 7) bombings police have recorded 300 hate crime incidents, including the killing of a man in Nottingham after anti-Muslim abuse was shouted at him.
and
http://society.guardian.co.uk/emergencyplanning/story/0,14501,1529184,00.html
Far right and football gangs plot 'revenge'
Anti-Muslim websites monitored
Friday July 15, 2005
Plans by an alliance of rightwing extremists and football hooligans to exact "revenge" on Muslims after last week's bomb attacks are being monitored by police.
The Guardian has learned that extremists are keen to cause widespread fear and injury with attacks on mosques and high-profile "anti-Muslim" events in the capital.
Football hooligans communicating over the internet have spoken of the need to put aside partisan support for teams and unite against Muslims. Hooligans from West Ham, Millwall, Crystal Palace and Arsenal are among those seeking to establish common cause.
Someone ostensibly from the UK has never heard of the football hooliganism phenomena?
If this Brazilian guy was such an "imminent threat," can someone explain why he was allowed to get onto a bus?
What will happen in a few months, say October, when EVERYONE is wearing a jacket over in the UK? And I guess this also means that anyone coming out of an apartment building where suspected "terrorists" may live is to be shot on sight, just as if that person had kicked in your front door at 2am?! This thread has taken up too much of my time as it is. I have said my peace on this incident. Others will have their say. So be it.
I don't agree with anything else you said, but this is a good point. Palestinian bombers usually pull the cord as soon as they're made.
And now that the actual terrorists know about this policy, they'll incorporate a dead man's switch into their bombs.
Circumstances being what they were in London this tragic misunderstanding is also understandable (which makes it even more frightening).
Has anyone considered that de Menezes was running from what he may have feared was a bomb on the bus he just exited?
Think of working in an area where you depend on mass transit (bus and subway) and you've been one of the lucky ones that weren't anywhere near any of the bombing/attempted bombing sites over the past 2 weeks. People suddenly start yelling and confusion breaks out and all you want to do is get away from what you fear may be yet more bomds. The problem is that the LE authorities think it's you and you have no idea that they're after you because they don't call you by name.
It's a tragic set of circumstances that lead to the death of someone that was just going to and from work.
Has anyone considered that de Menezes was running from what he may have feared was a bomb on the bus he just exited?
Think of working in an area where you depend on mass transit (bus and subway) and you've been one of the lucky ones that weren't anywhere near any of the bombing/attempted bombing sites over the past 2 weeks. People suddenly start yelling and confusion breaks out and all you want to do is get away from what you fear may be yet more bomds. The problem is that the LE authorities think it's you and you have no idea that they're after you because they don't call you by name.
It's a tragic set of circumstances that lead to the death of someone that was just going to and from work.
Last edited:
Still not enough info to make a judgement on this...
IMO, if someone is a suicide bomber, then bundling him to the floor and then shooting him until he stops twitching is justifiable. (For one thing, what counts as "restrained" for a suicide bomber would be different than for a normal suspect - if he fell with his hands under him, he could still potentially trigger a bomb).
On the other hand, as he wasn't a bomber, we need to know why he ran before we can say it was an unfortunate tradgedy, or an outragous case of JBTism.
If he new they were police, and ran because his visa had expired (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm), then thats unfortunate, but you can't blame the poilce.
On the other hand, if he ran because a gang of non-unifirmed men pulled guns on him without properly identifying themselves, then thats much worse, and much more worrying. (IMO, possibly more worrying that knowing that there are terrorists out there).
(And as other people have pointed out, both on this thread and in the UK, if he was a suspected bomber, why didn't they stop him sooner, before he got on a bus? That at least suggests a failure of responsibility).
I saw a phone-in "debate" on TV this morning, and the responders seemed evenly split between fascists ("If the police suspect someone of being a bomber, they should shoot him without even warning him") and bliss-ninnies ("We don't have capital punishment in this country, so the police should never shoot anyone under any circumstances").
IMO, if someone is a suicide bomber, then bundling him to the floor and then shooting him until he stops twitching is justifiable. (For one thing, what counts as "restrained" for a suicide bomber would be different than for a normal suspect - if he fell with his hands under him, he could still potentially trigger a bomb).
On the other hand, as he wasn't a bomber, we need to know why he ran before we can say it was an unfortunate tradgedy, or an outragous case of JBTism.
If he new they were police, and ran because his visa had expired (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm), then thats unfortunate, but you can't blame the poilce.
On the other hand, if he ran because a gang of non-unifirmed men pulled guns on him without properly identifying themselves, then thats much worse, and much more worrying. (IMO, possibly more worrying that knowing that there are terrorists out there).
(And as other people have pointed out, both on this thread and in the UK, if he was a suspected bomber, why didn't they stop him sooner, before he got on a bus? That at least suggests a failure of responsibility).
I saw a phone-in "debate" on TV this morning, and the responders seemed evenly split between fascists ("If the police suspect someone of being a bomber, they should shoot him without even warning him") and bliss-ninnies ("We don't have capital punishment in this country, so the police should never shoot anyone under any circumstances").
- Status
