Shoot first

Since when did we live in a shoot first ask questions second society ?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050725/325/fo2x5.html

How come this is happening now and never happened when the IRA regularly bombed our cities or when Lockerbie happened - didn't more people die in that then the recent bombings in London ?

Is this the US influence or have we forgotten, after the shooting of an innocent of Friday, that people are innocent until proven otherwise.

 

Since when? Since we acquired suicide bombers.

A pretty dozy set of questions, there.

 

The difference with the IRA is that their bombers never deliberately took themselves out in the blast. On top of this they usually gave advanced warnings, unless the targets were military. Perhaps they quickly became aware that civilian casualties did nothing to further their cause.

The shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes was tragic and needs full investigation. However, put yourself in the position of an armed policeman when you have a suspected suicide bomber running away and desperately trying to get on to a crowded train – what would you do? It’s a split second decision taken to minimise the risk to other members of the public and the police themselves – and if you do decide to take the guy out then you have to shoot to kill – wounding is not an option.

Would you fancy this responsibility? If not, do you feel well placed to strongly criticise those who HAVE to take this responsibility on and then make a mistake?

If this guy had been a suicide bomber and the police hadn’t shot him – and he’d subsequently jumped onto the train and let a bomb off, the police would have been slated for NOT taking him out.

As it happens they got it badly wrong but everyone needs to understand that if the police try to stop you anywhere around London then running away is the last thing you should do.

Finally, let it be said that whilst a police error was made in this case, the main reason the poor fellow in question was killed is because terrorists have decided to wage a bombing campaign on London and have thus put a number of Metropolitan police officers in an incredibly difficult position.

Matt.

 

May be a set of dozy questions but was there any evidence that it was suicide bombers ? According to reports in a Cambridge paper :


"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said.

this was stated by Bruce Lait, a survivor from the one of the trains - full report here - http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf

I was just wondering that was all.

 

What I found strange about the whole thing is that every eye-witness said the guy was "an Asian man" - simply because they expected the police to only shoot "Asian" people - whatever Asian is - Indian? Thai? Japanese? Iranian?
Seems that now's a good time to get back to the Victorian fashion for snow-white skin, simply to avoid mistaken identity!

 

Personally I feel that anyone who runs from armed police, plainclothes or uniformed (and from what I've read, this guy attempted to evade both) is bound to get shot.

When armed police shoot someone with a dummy/replica firearm, they are not to know that its not real...yet it seems that some expect that police should have some crystal ball that enables them to tell whether someone who could well be a suicide bomber who tries to flee is then is actually a suicide bomber or not.

Some of the comments I've read in the press and online are real red herrings as well - 'what if he didn't understand English?' cry some. Are we to expect the police to know this also, or maybe all they should be trained shout 'police stop' in a wide range of different languages and dialects just to be sure? The bloke had lived in England for 3 years, and apparently spoke good English.

The calls for an investigation are somewhat pointless as well - don't people know that in every case where a police officer shoots someone, there is by default an investigation as part of normal procedure, and that the officer in question is relieved from duty pending this inquiry.

I can't help but feel that the police are stuck between a rock and a hard place - if they'd shot a bomber they'd be heroes, if they failed to shoot a bomber they'd be zeroes. And if they shoot an innocent man, despite him disobeying their orders and fearing for public safety, they get criticised for that too.

 

It reminds me of the film Cable Guy...theres a scene where Ben Stillers character is in court and they are playing a tape of his 911 call after his twin brother has been killed (by him) and he's trying to pass the buck....

“Oh, my God! Oh, my God! My twin brother has been shot! I think it was an Asian gang or something! There was this guy. He looked....Asian, and he was speaking another language. I'm pretty sure it was…....Asian!â€Â

But joking aside who isn't going to get a pang of worry when an asian guy gets on the train with a rucksack on? Its just conditioning isn't it. We're scared of white kids in hoodies, asians with rucksacks and black guys generally. Thats probably why people are so shocked when 'ordinary' people kill.....it doesn't fit with our set of stereotypes. However, when stereotypes are reinforced we get a dangerous atmosphere of suspiscion and if you happen to be a law abiding hoodie wearer, Asian rucksack carrier or black fella your going to feel pretty bad about living in Britain and thats what we have now.

 

Ive been pondering the question 'why did he run' ?

The best answer I can come up with, is that in Brazil many see the police as 'just another gang'. Perhaps he was running in fear of getting shot.

If he a) had good english and b) had been in Britain for 3 years (as above) then it is still a strange reaction.

Perhaps he had some dope on him or something?

 

If shouted at in the London underground, with my cloth ears, I'd probably mis-hear it or more likely ignore it. There's lots of shouting anyway, between friends, in arguments, shouts from the mentally ill are very common and you walk away from them, buskers singing can sound like a shout. This is probably how the guy reacted. As a victim of circumstances, his skin tone and failed judgement, he was very unlucky.

Might another officer have shot him. Maybe, maybe not. My own view is that the incident need not have happened but that it did was a tragic error of judgement that can and will occasionally happen. There is such a thing as bad chance. Also, before damning the officer, we should know all the factors involved on the spot and we may never get to hear them.

A point also about "shoot to kill". If it is neccessary to shoot, it IS to kill. There was never such a thing as shoot to wound. In Northern Ireland if an arrest could be made that was preferable, but unless you are talking about baton rounds in riot control, noone is trained to shoot at legs. It is to kill. Someone above mentioned also the difference between those who wish to live to fight another day and those who welcome their own martyrdom. That is very true. (There are of course circumstances where terrorists of the former type should be killed regardless e.g. assumed detonator in hand - perfect example was in Gibralter when IRA pricks got four automatic pistol magazines spent on them in under 3 seconds )

I'm sure the guy is himself is gutted and would never set out to be casual with life. The Met has said sorry and I think they mean it. Noone wants an own goal at this time or any other, especially when an innocent man dies.

As Bottleneck says, he might have behaved like he was involved in some minor infraction we don't know about, which could have indirectly contributed to the split second decision to shoot. That's not saying he would "deserve" it, just that it could contribute to bad chance in bad circumstances.

Lastly, on the subject of blame: We sometimes have need for armed response in our name and for our protection. It would not be there were it not for the threats posed in the first place. The Commissioner was right to pin ultimate blame on the terrorists. When you are ill or injured, doctors call upon a range of tools and skills, to save you. Sometimes, with the best of intentions they get it wrong and kill you. Do they want do it? No. How do we react? Cancel all operations ? Of course not.

 

mystery solved? Ever thought about why the housing market is so overheated??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm

This really is the edge of a much larger topic, in that we have no idea how many non-UK citizens there are on these islands. The BBC are still calling the guy an 'electrician'. Funny, I thought that since Jan 2005, even people with a C+G in BS7671 wiring are no longer allowed to install wiring without council inspection etc...
This is the ridiculous state we are in. Maybe I should just go and study 'Canadian' or 'Australian' for a few years over there - then I can become a nurse, electrician, plumber....

 

From the reports I've read it sounds like cold-blooded murder.

 

Easy to judge when sat at your PC isn’t it!

So, Dick, let’s assume that you are the armed officer in question. You’re following a suspected suicide bomber and he’s desperately trying to get on to a crowded train (vaulting the barriers etc) so that, as far as you are concerned, he can pull the wire and kill/maim as many innocent lives as possible.

You’ve been given orders by your superiors to shoot any suspected suicide bombers if you think they are about to harm others.

What would YOU do – take him out or directly disobey orders and risk him killing and injuring dozens of people?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but unfortunately it also means people who don’t know all the details, and who almost certainly wouldn’t be mentally strong enough to do the job of the one they are criticising, can go around putting a murderer label on someone who was in an impossible situation.

Look, this officer obviously acted as he thought appropriate and is going to have to live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life – the last thing he needs is to be called a murderer!

Matt.

 

Hi Graham, in this context it's perhaps a moot point, considering he paid for it with his life.

Back to the topic. What would anyone else have done? I realise that armed police are trained and perhaps will keep their heads when most of us will panic. What would your reaction be if the police had hesitated and let a potential bomber detonate the device? I don't think the police are guilty of murder. This was tragic but understandable turn of events.

There are however a number of questions that need to be answered IMO. For example why shoot a man 8 times (once in the shoulder and seven times in the head, previously we were told it was 5 times in the head) when he's already pinned down by 2 officers? why wait until he's walking into a Tubes station before approaching him? why did the victim (Jean Charles de Menezes) not speak/shout/protest?, but I guess we need to wait until inquiries are complete.

 

i agree with Matt and graham c's comments are small minded in the extreme

 

Here's a question.

Why did the police wait until the "suspect" was entering the tube station and therefore a place crowded with the public before challenging him? Just how far did they tail him from the block of flats he emerged from before deciding that they had to take "immediate" action to nullify the threat they percieved.
Why wasn't he challenged on the street? or on the estate? Both places at which far fewer members of the public were at risk and the available options to the police more diverse.


I can think of many more genuine reasons why a perfectly innocent person who was being followed by three strangers in an area like stockwell should decide to run. A lot more reasons than I can think of why a group of so-called highly trained proffessionals should allow a potential suicide bomber reach about the most crowded place in the local area.

There are some very serious questions to be asked about the competance of the armed police (and presumably their superiors) involved in this incident.

GTM

 

Armed policeman is only allowed to fire if his life or another persons life(or he believes it) is at danger. IMO we have the best police force in the world. The fact is this man was running into a train with a loose coat on (warm day), he had a bag with him and he had been told to stop. Remember the country is at a high state of alert. I would not of run away under these circumstances, would you?

 

According to the news tonight, there were 2 police units involved.
First, the unit that had been watching the flat, they followed him to the bus stop where he got a bus to the tube station.
That unit then contacted the armed response unit, apparently telling them of their suspition of him being a suicide bomber.
The armed response unit started to follow him as he left the bus.

If that is the case, i believe if anyone has explaining to do, it is the people who gave the intelligence and perhaps not the armed officers.

They had been told to shoot to kill, this is deemed to be the only aproach to dealing with suicide bombers. A shot anywhere but the head may leave them still capable of detonating a bomb.

Read into that what you will.

My thoughts are that the police do and will have a lot of explaining to do, but it is a very difficult situation for them to deal with.

London has been attached twice in as many weeks, this is going to un-nerve a lot of people, even the police.

To my mind we are effectivly at war, a group has commited acts of war against the UK.
In the past we have always known who wanted to wage war against us, we dont know who it is now, what country they come from, do they have any type of official backing from a government etc..

 

We are at war all right! Not just in the recent weeks but ever since Blair followed Bush and took us into the Iraq War. It is surprising that it took the terrorists so long to start their counter-offensive in Britain.

It is very possible many more innocent people murdered in the hands of the armed police and the terroists. "collateral damage"; to borrow a phrase from the americans.

Having said that I feel that we are unlikely to experience anything like what happened back in the IRA days.

 

They have the potential to make it worse.

We are at war, but the problem is, who are we fighting?

 

Unlike in conventional warfare the enemy do not wear a uniform, has no specific nationality or geographic location.

However, intelligence services use number of techniques that monitor behaviour patterns of people (eg. website usage, countries they visit).