you know that "terrorist" that was shot in london?

[TurdBerglar]

LONDON - Police identified the man who was chased down in a subway and shot to death by plainclothes officers as a Brazilian and expressed regret Saturday for his death, saying they no longer believed he was tied to the recent terror bombings (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8655541/)

[RobMoney]

I always thought police in England didn't carry firearms?
How'd they shoot the fucker if they aren't supposed to have guns?


Strange things are afoot at the circle K

[P of R]

Fascist pigs.

[venusvenus123]

the guy got killed for being incredibly stupid, ignorant of the emergency situation around him, or perhaps both.

perhaps he thinks it's normal to be chased by several armed men when your work permit has expired. perhaps he had no idea of the events of the previous two weeks in london.

when you run from armed police, wearing a big padded jacket on a warm summer's day, just 48hrs after the whole city has been besieged by terrorists for the second time in two weeks, you kind of have to expect that you might be seen as a threat, which cannot be tolerated.

[RobMoney]

the guy got killed for being incredibly stupid, ignorant of the emergency situation around him, or perhaps both.

perhaps he thinks it's normal to be chased by several armed men when your work permit has expired. perhaps he had no idea of the events of the previous two weeks in london.

when you run from armed police, wearing a big padded jacket on a warm summer's day, just 48hrs after the whole city has been besieged by terrorists for the second time in two weeks, you kind of have to expect that you might be seen as a threat, which cannot be tolerated.



and you forgot to say he even looked like a "Muslim" too (n) (n) (n) (n)

[ms.peachy]

the guy got killed for being incredibly stupid, ignorant of the emergency situation around him, or perhaps both.

perhaps he thinks it's normal to be chased by several armed men when your work permit has expired. perhaps he had no idea of the events of the previous two weeks in london.

when you run from armed police, wearing a big padded jacket on a warm summer's day, just 48hrs after the whole city has been besieged by terrorists for the second time in two weeks, you kind of have to expect that you might be seen as a threat, which cannot be tolerated.
I'm totally with you there, Venus. I feel bad for the poor dumb bastard, but Jesus. H Christ! He had come out of a building that was under surveillance, ran from the cops, jumped the tickets barriers and ran onto a train in one of the same stations where there had been an attempted bombing barely 24 hours earlier.

It is tragic, but it is entirely understandable.

[Loppfessor]

Meh...let that be a lesson to the rest of you *gives sinister look*

[ms.peachy]

and you forgot to say he even looked like a "Muslim" too (n) (n) (n) (n)
I don't actually think that's a relevant comment, Rob. Quite frankly, as a white woman in her mid 30's, I would fully expect that if I attempted to evade police offficers in a tube station and ran, they would shoot me.

[RobMoney]

I don't actually think that's a relevant comment, Rob. Quite frankly, as a white woman in her mid 30's, I would fully expect that if I attempted to evade police offficers in a tube station and ran, they would shoot me.



Did the guy expose a firearm or a knife in a threatening manor towards the officers? If not then it sounds like someone got a lot over-zealous and reacted on circumstances, and now someone is dead because of their mistake in judgement.

Shooting a suspect is always the last possible resort the police use against a suspect in America.

Is it possible the English Government and media are trying to put a positive spin on this story because they are mightily embarressed?

[ms.peachy]

they should have shot to wound instead of to kill.

For multiple reasons.

I realize he was really suspect and running, so aiming was difficult, but there are far more unfatal areas to shoot on the human body, than fatal.

It wasnt just 'luck' that they hit a fatal one.
Consider this, Mae: if the suspect is indeed a suicide bomber, here are the possible options-

1. Don't shoot, and he gets away and blows up a load of people.

2. Shoot him somewhere in the body, and you risk detonating the explosives yourself, and he blows up a load of people.

3. Shoot him in the legs, and he is wounded, can't run, but is still able to detonate the explosives himself, and he blows up a load of people.

That pretty much leaves the head, you know? It would be great to say "Well they should just wound and then arrest," but it is simply not a realistic option when you are dealing with someone who has a bomb strapped to them and is willing to die.

[ms.peachy]

Did the guy expose a firearm or a knife in a threatening manor towards the officers? If not then it sounds like someone got a lot over-zealous and reacted on circumstances, and now someone is dead because of their mistake in judgement.

Is it possible the English Government and media are trying to put a positive spin on this story because they are mightily embarressed?
1. He was already being followed fromt he time he left the building.

2. He was wearing a big bulky jacket on a summer day. One eyewitness is said to have reported that they saw what looked like wires coming out from under his jacket.

3. He failed to stop when challenged by police officers.

4. He had lived in the country for 3 years and friends say he spoke "excellent" English, so could not have misunderstood the command to stop.

5. He ran from the police, jumped the ticket barriers, and headed straight for a train in a station that had had an attemted bombing almost exactly 24 hours earlier. This is all corroborated by eyewitnesses.

Do I think the guy deserved to die? No.
Do I think he is just an innocent bloke who panicked, reacted badly to a situation? Quite likely.
But do I think the police had another good option? Not really.

[RobMoney]

Consider this, Mae: if the suspect is indeed a suicide bomber, here are the possible options-

1. Don't shoot, and he gets away and blows up a load of people.

2. Shoot him somewhere in the body, and you risk detonating the explosives yourself, and he blows up a load of people.

3. Shoot him in the legs, and he is wounded, can't run, but is still able to detonate the explosives himself, and he blows up a load of people.

I wonder if the police had considered the fact thatif he did indeed have a bomb attached to his torso, shooting him there would have caused it to detonate and kill all the innocent by-standers as well.

This whole story sounds like some cop has been watching too many Lethal Weapon movies.

but it is simply not a realistic option when you are dealing with someone who has a bomb strapped to them and is willing to die.


...but he didn't have a bomb and willing to die.

[ms.peachy]

I wonder if the police had considered the fact thatif he did indeed have a bomb attached to his torso, shooting him there would have caused it to detonate and kill all the innocent by-standers as well.
Didn't I just say that to Mae? That's why they have to go for the head.
This whole story sounds like some cop has been watching too many Lethal Weapon movies.
Well listen, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but that just sounds flippant to me. I am satisfied that the Metropolitan police take no joy in what has happened. They are not in the business of shooting innocent people on subway platforms in front of commuters.


...but he didn't have a bomb and willing to die.
No. But a judgement call had to be made in a split second. Would you want to be responsible for making it? What if you didn't shoot the guy, and he blew up a train carriage full of people? It's a fucked up situation, and I am not inclined to second guess any of the officers who are in this position right now.

[RobMoney]

1. He was already being followed fromt he time he left the building.

2. He was wearing a big bulky jacket on a summer day. One eyewitness is said to have reported that they saw what looked like wires coming out from under his jacket.

3. He failed to stop when challenged by police officers.

4. He had lived in the country for 3 years and friends say he spoke "excellent" English, so could not have misunderstood the command to stop.

5. He ran from the police, jumped the ticket barriers, and headed straight for a train in a station that had had an attemted bombing almost exactly 24 hours earlier. This is all corroborated by eyewitnesses.

Do I think the guy deserved to die? No.
Do I think he is just an innocent bloke who panicked, reacted badly to a situation? Quite likely.
But do I think the police had another good option? Not really.


The police couldn't have possibly have known about any eye-witness accounts while they were in the process of persuing him.
They shot first and filled in the answers later.
I realize the climate in London must be extremely sensitive right now, but an innocent man is dead because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and everyone wants to cover their ass on it.

It's a tragedegy for sure.

[ms.peachy]

The police couldn't have possibly have known about any eye-witness accounts while they were in the process of persuing him.
They shot first and filled in the answers later.

I disagree. I only mentioned the eyewitness statements to point out that the information I am relating to you isn't just information from police sources, but that there are people who were there whose version of events match the police statments.

[Loppfessor]

I see your point.

And Maybe Im being to idealistic, but why not his legs AND arms. or at least the shoulders.




Have you ever tried to shoot a moving target, worse yet a moving human target probably while running yourself? It's really not that easy, I woulda aimed for the body but definitely not a leg or arm if you miss odds are you're gonna hit someone else.

[TurdBerglar]

first of all they shot the guy after they grabbed him and threw him to the ground.


secondly. why the fuck would he run? what's he running from? why run away from police officers? he didn't have a bomb. but he was probably up to something.

[Echewta]

Shooting a suspect is always the last possible resort the police use against a suspect in America.

Whoa, maybe on Seaseme Street.

Here in Los Angeles, we often have shoot firsts, ask questions later. Then again, we often have the police being blamed for things that are totally illogical.

[Freebasser]

It's all well and good saying he spoke English, but at the end of the day if you thought there might be armed terrorists about (and at least one of the 4 suspected bombers was armed) and 3 burly looking plain clothed men chase you, instinct might tell you to run. He might not have heard them shout police - he may have been too traumatised.

But on the other hand, if a suicide bomber has a concealed bomb belt, he could well have a detonator hidden up his sleeve and in his hand. If you didn't shoot to kill, he could blow up several innocent people before you even get a chance to search him.

It is not a nice situation, but there was no other outcome. Not after the events of the other day. The police are not trigger happy, and this is the first shooting on the tube in living memory.

[Paul Kemp]

they pinned him to the ground and shot him 5 times in the head. I think that's a bit excessive.

[Freebasser]

But on the other hand, if a suicide bomber has a concealed bomb belt, he could well have a detonator hidden up his sleeve and in his hand. If you didn't shoot to kill, he could blow up several innocent people before you even get a chance to search him.

[Paul Kemp]

they pinned him to the ground and shot him 5 times in the head. I think that's a bit excessive.

[venusvenus123]

they needed to make sure he was dead.

[TurdBerglar]

wasn't it only one shot to the head?

[franscar]

wasn't it only one shot to the head?

It's completely different things depending on which eye witness account is being looked at. Some said he had a rucksack, others said he was wearing a bomb belt, others said he was simply wearing a large coat. Some say the police shot as he ran onto the train, others say he was tackled, sat on and then shot, others say he tripped as he got on the train and was then shot.

As far as I know he was shot five times though.

[Mr_Complex]

wasn't it only one shot to the head?

I heard 5.

[Mr_Complex]

Sorry, didn't realise there was a previous reply.

[RobMoney]

secondly. why the fuck would he run? what's he running from? why run away from police officers? he didn't have a bomb. but he was probably up to something.


OK, you just lost me on this one Turd,

I have jumped the turnstyle myself a few times when I was a kid to get on the train, usually going to a concert while wearing a large coat coincedently, to carry beers.

Maybe he just bought some drugs of some sort and had "weight" on him, thus the thick jacket. Aroud here those bubble goose jackets are almost like a symbol that the guy is selling.

Maybe he was an illegal immigrant who's permit had expired, like Venus said..

Maybe he'd just gotten in a fight with someone and he thought he was going to be arrested for it.

Hell, he could have been up to almost anything illegal, that doesn't mean you deserve to be held down and shot 5 times for it.


I guess the bottom line is this; if you're a tanned-skin man in London, you fit the description of a terrorist and you better not run or you'll be slaughtered on the spot like a pig and the cops can make it look like it wasn't their fault.

[ms.peachy]

Hell, he could have been up to almost anything illegal, that doesn't mean you deserve to be held down and shot 5 times for it.


I guess the bottom line is this; if you're a tanned-skin man in London, you fit the description of a terrorist and you better not run or you'll be slaughtered on the spot like a pig and the cops can make it look like it wasn't their fault.
As I've said Rob, I don't agree with this assessment. There are white Muslims, you know. I think pretty much anybody, man or woman, regardless of colour, who runs from the police into a tube station is as likely to get shot as anyone .

"Fault" lies with the terrorist fuckers who created this climate.

No, this man did not 'deserve' to die. But he did make a fatal error, due to panic or whatever. It is indeed very tragic. But consider what is at risk here.

[RobMoney]

As I've said Rob, I don't agree with this assessment. There are white Muslims, you know. I think pretty much anybody, man or woman, regardless of colour, who runs from the police into a tube station is as likely to get shot as anyone .

"Fault" lies with the terrorist fuckers who created this climate.

No, this man did not 'deserve' to die. But he did make a fatal error, due to panic or whatever. It is indeed very tragic. But consider what is at risk here.


I respect your point of view Ms. Peachy, but I just disagree with you.
The cops fucked up big-time, that's just my opinion.

Does anyone know for sure if the kid indeed was apprehended first, then held down and shot 5 times in the head? If this account is true, the cops have no excuse in my opinion.

[DroppinScience]

I think we're all forgetting that the police in question were dressed in plain clothes. NOT uniforms.

(FYI, the Brazilian national is also an electrician legally working and living in England, so there was no visa expiring stuff and he wasn't up to anything illegal, as far as we can tell)

So I think this dude who was running had no clue the guys he was running from were the police. If they were in uniform, this situation probably would've never happened.

I think there were obviously fatal errors made by both sides here. But five bullets to the head when he was down... too excessive. Out of any of the mistakes the cops and the running man made, I think that one could've been avoided easily. :(

[miss soul fire]

Yeah, he was stupid. He should just have done what they said in the first place, but KILL? "Hey, kill everyone who's running from the police!!!" I don't know, I guess he thought that the police in other countries were more decent than ours, but he was wrong, all policemen are the same, unfortunately. (n)

[Parkey]

He looked pretty 'white european' to me. I don't think you could accuse the rozzers of doing it based on his appearance; click (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4712061.stm)

[DroppinScience]

He looked pretty 'white european' to me. I don't think you could accuse the rozzers of doing it based on his appearance; click (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4712061.stm)

Oh yeah, that's a straight-up honkey. Didn't realize that...

Anyways, I think they did target him because of "appearance." Not necessarily based on race or ethnicity or even religion, but that he was wearing a real baggy coat in fairly hot weather (i.e. uh-oh, maybe this guy has a bomb strapped to his chest) and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (i.e. a building the cops were investigating that might have some terrorists inside).

[venusvenus123]

Yeah, he was stupid. He should just have done what they said in the first place, but KILL? "Hey, kill everyone who's running from the police!!!" I don't know, I guess he thought that the police in other countries were more decent than ours, but he was wrong, all policemen are the same, unfortunately. (n)
if they believed him to be carrying a bomb and willing to blow himself and others up, grazing his hand wouldn't have been much good.


(FYI, the Brazilian national is also an electrician legally working and living in England, so there was no visa expiring stuff and he wasn't up to anything illegal, as far as we can tell)
yes i know. sadly he seemed to be absolutely clueless as to what was going on in his immediate surroundings; the bus that had a bomb on it on thursday was just down the road from where he lived (also down the road from where i live). it was unfortunate that he was wearing a large, padded jacket with wires hanging out from the bottom.

if a bunch of men start to chase you with some serious guns tho, it's likely you'd think that it'd be something to do with the state of emergency in london right now. he's lived here for three years -- you do not see men running round with guns in london on a daily basis. it seems quite likely that we will from now on tho. :(

[Michelle*s_Farm]

the guy got killed for being incredibly stupid, ignorant of the emergency situation around him, or perhaps both.

perhaps he thinks it's normal to be chased by several armed men when your work permit has expired. perhaps he had no idea of the events of the previous two weeks in london.

when you run from armed police, wearing a big padded jacket on a warm summer's day, just 48hrs after the whole city has been besieged by terrorists for the second time in two weeks, you kind of have to expect that you might be seen as a threat, which cannot be tolerated.

Is it so hard for you to imagine that a Brazilian has a different conception of police and how much they can be trusted?

http://pangaea.org/street_children/latin/braz7.htm

Indeed his fear of the police turned out to be correct. They murdered him for no reason. By the way the UK is cold compared to Brazil. The day of the shooting it was was probably 68°F whereas in Brazil it would have been around 90°F. If you were Brazilian you would have likely been wearing a coat as well that day.

[ms.peachy]

Is it so hard for you to imagine that a Brazilian has a different conception of police and how much they can be trusted?

I don't think anyone disputes that the man was panicked, and that there may have been good cultural reason for that. However, I can see no other way this situation really could have played out practically.

It is very tragic. He was killed, yes, but not murdered.

Is it so hard for you to imagine what it must be like to be a police officer faced with this situation?

[miss soul fire]

Their parents are really poor and he went to London to work and make money so he could go back to Brazil in a couple of years and help his parents. It would be better to just stay poor.

Aaahh, I'm tired of this crap. People die everyday by the police.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Is it so hard for you to imagine what it must be like to be a police officer faced with this situation?

It is not hard at all. My father was a police officer for 20 years.

[zorra_chiflada]

i suppose that anyone with dark colouring would be too scared to leave their home.
this was completely unacceptable, and we shouldn't be accepting any excuses from the police.

[DroppinScience]

The day of the shooting it was was probably 68°F whereas in Brazil it would have been around 90°F. If you were Brazilian you would have likely been wearing a coat as well that day.

If he just stepped off the airplane from Rio de Janeiro (or wherever he's from) to London the previous day... sure, I'd imagine he'd find it a tad colder. But this guy has been living in England for a few years. Wouldn't he have "adapted" to the climate and the seasons? :confused:

[Documad]

I think we're all forgetting that the police in question were dressed in plain clothes. NOT uniforms.

So I think this dude who was running had no clue the guys he was running from were the police. If they were in uniform, this situation probably would've never happened.

I think there were obviously fatal errors made by both sides here. But five bullets to the head when he was down... too excessive. Out of any of the mistakes the cops and the running man made, I think that one could've been avoided easily. :(
We will never know, but it seems like the worst misunderstanding on both sides. How many police were there? How did they identify themselves? If they were in plain clothes, it makes his actions more understandable but once the police are in pursuit and everyone's pulses are up it's difficult for them to back down and reassess. I can't imagine how I would feel if I were one of these cops. (My friend's husband has had to kill two guys in the line of duty and he had a tough time afterward even though his shootings were clearly justified.)

If you're a cop and you decide that you need to use deadly force, you had better kill the guy and make sure he's dead.

[GetYourWarOn]

I don't actually think that's a relevant comment, Rob. Quite frankly, as a white woman in her mid 30's, I would fully expect that if I attempted to evade police offficers in a tube station and ran, they would shoot me.

no they wouldn't.

[GetYourWarOn]

the basic point in all this is that the london police shot the wrong guy. acting suspicious and wearing a jacket on a warm day are not crimes punishable by death.

[GetYourWarOn]

I don't think anyone disputes that the man was panicked, and that there may have been good cultural reason for that. However, I can see no other way this situation really could have played out practically.

It is very tragic. He was killed, yes, but not murdered.

Is it so hard for you to imagine what it must be like to be a police officer faced with this situation?


no it's not that hard. if you're an officer you don't fire your weapon unless you are certain of the target you are shooting at.

[Medellia]

If he just stepped off the airplane from Rio de Janeiro (or wherever he's from) to London the previous day... sure, I'd imagine he'd find it a tad colder. But this guy has been living in England for a few years. Wouldn't he have "adapted" to the climate and the seasons? :confused:
Now I know the temperatuer difference between Oklahoma and Lousisana isn't that big, but after kiving here for nine years I;m still not used to it. the difference between Brazil and England is much larger and he'd been there for what, three years? I wouldn't be too sur[rised if he still wasn't used to it.

[ms.peachy]

no they wouldn't.
I am not certain of that. And I have no intention of testing my theory.

This is a tragic and terrible situation. Ultimately, correct me if I am wrong, but not a single one of here on this board was there and so all we can do here is propose and make conjectures. It will be some time until all of the facts are plain. Until then, although wary, I am willing to believe that the police acted in good faith and that in that moment, they made the decision they thought best to protect the public.

[RobMoney]

Once, when I was younger, some friends and I were drinking at a park. We were underage at the time. A cop pulled up on us real quick and nabbed me and one of my friends. I didn't run, just stood there, partly in defiance, and partly because they were on us soo quick I was probably too drunk to get away anyway.

Cop: Why'd you just stand there, why didn't you run.
Me: I have nothing to run for, I wasn't drinking...... :D
Cop: Doesn't matter if you have a beer in your hand, you're caught,...you shoulda run when we pulled up, I wouldn't have chased you, I just wanted you guys to leave......now I have to lock you up
Me: WTF? so you're telling me I should have run even if I wasn't doing anything wrong?
Cop: Yep,....next time you'll run, won't you
Me: I guess so?!?!

[Parkey]

According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm), Jean Charles de Menezes' visa had expired a couple of years back, so that could explain why he bolted. Also, he friends/family say he didn't feel the cold even in mid-winter so can't understand why he would wear a big jacket in summer.

[Documad]

Once, when I was younger, some friends and I were drinking at a park. We were underage at the time. A cop pulled up on us real quick and nabbed me and one of my friends. I didn't run, just stood there, partly in defiance, and partly because they were on us soo quick I was probably too drunk to get away anyway.

Cop: Why'd you just stand there, why didn't you run.
Me: I have nothing to run for, I wasn't drinking...... :D
Cop: Doesn't matter if you have a beer in your hand, you're caught,...you shoulda run when we pulled up, I wouldn't have chased you, I just wanted you guys to leave......now I have to lock you up
Me: WTF? so you're telling me I should have run even if I wasn't doing anything wrong?
Cop: Yep,....next time you'll run, won't you
Me: I guess so?!?!
What a stupid cop! Two Minneapolis police officers told me they nearly shot my white nephew BECAUSE he ran from the scene of a crime.

[enree erzweglle]

A news report last week said that they were drawn to one of the suspects because he was running from the scene after the bomb went off.

I watched that and thought, "After a bomb detonates--and I wouldn't know for sure firsthand--but I'll bet your first instinct is to run."

I told myself not to do that. If I'm ever in the vicinity of a bomb after it's detonated, I'm going to tell myself not to run. Why, I plan to stroll away from that detonated bomb and its debris and chaos--and I'll do it quietly and slowly. Maybe I'll take in the sights or get something to cool to drink, stop and visit with the locals.

Jon Stewart had a segment about how so many of the U.S.-based news agencies were all about the "Could it happen here" aspect of the bombing stories. That's just sad.

[Documad]

Also, if someone breaks into my house, and I decide to use my handgun, I'm going to empty the clip and aim for his good parts. I'm not going to try and shoot his feet. Because life is not Terminator 2. ;)

[ms.peachy]

A news report last week said that they were drawn to one of the suspects because he was running from the scene after the bomb went off.
I think you may be misinterpreting that, if you are talking about the attempted bombings on the 21st. When they failed to detonate, the suspects DID run (the tube ones anyway, I think the bus thing is a little different situation), in one case up out of the station ahead of the rest of the crowd after some passengers tried to hold him, and in another ran off onto the tracks, the opposite direction from the station. So it's not just 'hey, he ran away, how odd' - there's a bit more to it, I reckon.

[Parkey]

I'm very glad I live in a country where someone getting shot by the Police makes headline nationwide news for a number of days. I imagine this kind of thing is quite common in other parts of the world.

[RobMoney]

I'm very glad I live in a country where someone getting shot by the Police makes headline nationwide news for a number of days. I imagine this kind of thing is quite common in other parts of the world.


Actually in other countries such as the USA the police protocol is that any officer who fires a firearm for any reason is immediately assigned to "desk duty" until a thorough investigation is done.

[venusvenus123]

Actually in other countries such as the USA the police protocol is that any officer who fires a firearm for any reason is immediately assigned to "desk duty" until a thorough investigation is done.
you seem to be forgetting that this shooting took place under unique circumstances. the men who were assigned to this mission are highly trained officers operating under an authorised "shoot to kill" policy.

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

it's so tragic that he thought they were after him because his visa had expired :( then kept on running...

[icy manipulator]

i was the one who shot the mofo

[Parkey]

Actually in other countries such as the USA the police protocol is that any officer who fires a firearm for any reason is immediately assigned to "desk duty" until a thorough investigation is done.
The same thing happened here, although there's a widespread belief in the press that these weren't normal Met police and were more likely Special Forces.

[ms.peachy]

I'm very glad I live in a country where someone getting shot by the Police makes headline nationwide news for a number of days. I imagine this kind of thing is quite common in other parts of the world.
I agree. Even though I doubt there could realistically have been another outcome in this situation, it is good to see that it is an issue that provokes debate and reflection, and not apathetic shrugging.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

If he just stepped off the airplane from Rio de Janeiro (or wherever he's from) to London the previous day... sure, I'd imagine he'd find it a tad colder. But this guy has been living in England for a few years. Wouldn't he have "adapted" to the climate and the seasons? :confused:

I do not know. I am from Canada and I still find the summer too hot here in the US. You are right that one would expect some climatization but people I know from Africa do not consider it too hot here (i.e., the Northeast US). Anyway the real point is there are multiple innocent explanations for his actions that day. Furthermore shooting a running and/or unarmed man is generally not acceptable conduct. Perhaps this could be done with reasonable evidence that the individual was carrying a bomb - but the police in this situation likely did not have that. Although, a proper investigation may reveal otherwise. Will the British conduct such a proper investigation of the officers or will this event be chalked up to "It is an amazing time here". A truly lame excuse that does little service to justice.

[ms.peachy]

Will the British conduct such a proper investigation of the officers or will this event be chalked up to "It is an amazing time here". A truly lame excuse that does little service to justice.

There are already two seperate inquiries underway. One by the Met police themselves, and one by an independent review board.

[enree erzweglle]

I think you may be misinterpreting that, if you are talking about the attempted bombings on the 21st. When they failed to detonate, the suspects DID run (the tube ones anyway, I think the bus thing is a little different situation), in one case up out of the station ahead of the rest of the crowd after some passengers tried to hold him, and in another ran off onto the tracks, the opposite direction from the station. So it's not just 'hey, he ran away, how odd' - there's a bit more to it, I reckon.
It could well be that I misinterpreted the two reports. I thought they were referring to the one that detonated because they talked about other people who were running away amid smoke and confusion.

I did hear about the part where passengers tried to detain the guy! That gave me a chill down my spine. A good chill not a bad one.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

No, this man did not 'deserve' to die. But he did make a fatal error, due to panic or whatever. It is indeed very tragic. But consider what is at risk here.

Blaming the victim is not cool. Blaming the terrorists is fine, but surely they are indirect causes in this specific circumstance. The direct causes are likely city administrators' policy, a poor anti-terrorism tactic education, anxiety-filled officers, and poor judgement by the shooter (s). This amounts to manslaughter at the very least or at possibly a second-degree murder conspiracy charge. The latter takes the sole burdern off the officers involved and spreads the blame to administrators / city officials (the police union would likely prefer this one). You watch, the city will likely try to shift the blame solely to the officers' in the next few months.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

There are already two seperate inquiries underway. One by the Met police themselves, and one by an independent review board.

That is good. It will be important to see what is revealed. We are basing a lot of debate on somewhat unreliable information from the media.

[ms.peachy]

Blaming the victim is not cool. Blaming the terrorists is fine, but surely they are indirect causes in this specific circumstance. The direct causes are likely city administrators' policy, a poor anti-terrorism tactic education, anxiety-filled officers, and poor judgement by the shooter (s). This amounts to manslaughter at the very least or at possibly a second-degree murder conspiracy charge. The latter takes the sole burdern off the officers involved and spreads the blame to administrators / city officials (the police union would likely prefer this one). You watch, the city will likely try to shift the blame solely to the officers' in the next few months.
I don't agree. I know as you say you are familiar with policing policies in the US, and I am sure some of that has direct correlations with policing in the UK (or anywhere in the world, for that matter), but I've also lived here long enough to have seen some of the stark differences as well. (In case you are not aware, I grew up in Jersey City and lived in and around NYC my whole life, and have now been in London for six years- which I know makes me an authority on nothing but does mean I have a different perspective and have had a chance to make some observations.) You may turn out to be correct, but I do doubt it.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

I don't agree. I know as you say you are familiar with policing policies in the US, and I am sure some of that has direct correlations with policing in the UK (or anywhere in the world, for that matter), but I've also lived here long enough to have seen some of the stark differences as well. (In case you are not aware, I grew up in Jersey City and lived in and around NYC my whole life, and have now been in London for six years- which I know makes me an authority on nothing but does mean I have a different perspective and have had a chance to make some observations.) You may turn out to be correct, but I do doubt it.

Not exactly sure which part you disagree. I suppose where blame should be laid upon. You prefer to blame circumstances, terrorists and the victim (surely the innocent man who was unjustly shot 5 times was a victim).
I suppose that is a reasonable position, it just does not sit well with me. Shooting an innocent man 5 times without sufficient cause is morally wrong and a miscarriage of justice. However, if it is found out that that the police had sufficient cause that is a different story (my gut reaction is that they did not have sufficient cause). I am not familiar with British laws other than an accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Are the individual officers to blame - perhaps partially (I prefer to think of this as a consequence of bad policing policy set by government administrators worried about re-election / public perception). I think 5 lethal shots of an unarmed man who simply lived in an apartment building under survelliance indicates poor decision-making possibly due to stress (stress partially caused by policy, lack of good training and the real threat posed by terrorists). Policy must be changed or at least the officers / agents with firearms must be better trained to identify real threats. Officers must be certain that when they use the shoot to kill policy that they can rest assured they have not shot an innocent.

[icy manipulator]

wow, lots and lots of words :p

[beastieangel01]

1. In regards to the jacket in the summer. I carry a jacket with me everyday and sometimes wear one because A. The A/C in my office is fucking CRANKED and I get super cold even though it's 80 outside and B. on public transport (that I used to go on) they too would have the A/C cranked. Adapt to it? I've lived here since I was 6 years old, and I still carry a jacket. I'm wearing one right now even and it's supposed to be 77 outside. acting suspicious and wearing a jacket on a warm day are not crimes punishable by death. I agree with this.

2. If three people in regular civilian clothing were running toward me with guns, ... I would not run mainly because I'd be like a rabbit in headlights when seeing guns. When feeling panic, you may not HEAR what they are yelling. I know I've been chased by someone that seemed to have malicious intent and I walked BRISKLY away and he was yelling things at me, but I did not hear any of them because I was so scared.

And fine, maybe he shouldn't have ran. But he did. And now that innocent man is dead. I find it appalling.

[g-mile7]

I'm totally with you there, Venus. I feel bad for the poor dumb bastard, but Jesus. H Christ! He had come out of a building that was under surveillance, ran from the cops, jumped the tickets barriers and ran onto a train in one of the same stations where there had been an attempted bombing barely 24 hours earlier.

It is tragic, but it is entirely understandable.


serious though.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

1. In regards to the jacket in the summer. I carry a jacket with me everyday and sometimes where one because A. The A/C in my office is fucking CRANKED and I get super cold even though it's 80 outside and B. on public transport (that I used to go on) they too would have the A/C cranked. Adapt to it? I've lived here since I was 6 years old, and I still carry a jacket. I'm wearing one right now even and it's supposed to be 77 outside. I agree with this.

2. If three people in regular civilian clothing were running toward me with guns, ... I would not run mainly because I'd be like a rabbit in headlights when seeing guns. When feeling panic, you may not HEAR what they are yelling. I know I've been chased by someone that seemed to have malicious intent and I walked BRISKLY away and he was yelling things at me, but I did not hear any of them because I was so scared.

And fine, maybe he shouldn't have ran. But he did. And now that innocent man is dead. I find it appalling.

Agreed.

[Parkey]

I don't think any sentinent human being would consider what happened as anything other than an appalling accident that was precipitated by the climate in London at the moment.

Ms. Peachy isn't defending it, just trying to put across the whole sphere of what went on.

[dodgy bob]

It really is a sorry situation but I think the officers involved had no other option but to shoot to kill. When you have to weigh up the possibility of maybe dozens of innocent lives (including your own) against the life of a man who has refused to stop in a place where an attempted strike has been made, then i'm with the police on this one. Its totally tragic but what were the options? They don't bear thinking about. :(

[g-mile7]

all Im saying is this if I see 20 or so cops all yelling for me to get down with triggers set I think I'm going get down instead of trying to tempt faith and fly like superman...just a thought but it's still messed up that someone died for no reason but those are the times, you'll get your ass beat for even joking about bombs on a plane now a days, most people need to realize this.

[beastieangel01]

as someone I know said... it's good to know that you can kill someone for being suspicious. 50 years ago black people were suspicious.

Although that guy was light skinned, so am I, but many people think I look Arab. I also wear a jacket/carry a jacket in the summer, and would be scared at people yelling at me and chasing me. It's a good thing I didn't get on public transport. They might as well have shot me.

Better yet, anyone who looks suspicious and wears a jacket in the summer, lets kill them. That will solve everything, right?

[g-mile7]

as someone I know said... it's good to know that you can kill someone for being suspicious. 50 years ago black people were suspicious.
Although that guy was light skinned, so am I, but many people think I look Arab. I also wear a jacket/carry a jacket in the summer, and would be scared at people yelling at me and chasing me. It's a good thing I didn't get on public transport. They might as well have shot me.

Better yet, anyone who looks suspicious and wears a jacket in the summer, lets kill them. That will solve everything, right?



they still do that today sadly. Just saw the shit on dateline about that. Also the fact is he ran away from the cops I mean it wasnt just that he was stadning there with a damn jacket on and the cops shot him, he evaded arrest adding more fuel to the fire of parnoia. Him dying is sad and tragic and the cops should be punished for it, but the fact is he ran away from the police leading them to believe something was up, if your that dumb to do that with all the shit happening, then god help you. What if he was a sucide bomber? In todays terror game they aint going take no chances, its sad but thats the world today. The officers will get theres, either in life or the afterlife, but the fact is homie was acting more suspicious then just "wearing a jacket on a hot day"

[Parkey]

The police have just confirmed they shot him 8 times, not 5.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

I don't think any sentinent human being would consider what happened as anything other than an appalling accident that was precipitated by the climate in London at the moment.

Ms. Peachy isn't defending it, just trying to put across the whole sphere of what went on.


Wonderful, what a pleasant view of the world. So people are not accountable for their mistakes anymore? It is not like the person was arrested and disgraced by being accussed of terrorism (then let go). He was shot more times than is required to subdue a person with a bomb. This is a serious issue and cannot be written off by appeals to "climate of London at the moment".

For interest sake, yesterday a man threw a bag at Amtrack officials at Penn Station and yelled "bomb". He was not shot and killed.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/25/penn.station.ap/index.html

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Wonderful, what a pleasant view of the world. So people are not accountable for their mistakes anymore? It is not like the person was arrested and disgraced by being accussed of terrorism (then let go). He was shot more times than is required to subdue a person with a bomb. This is a serious issue and cannot be written off by appeals to "climate of London at the moment".

For interest sake, yesterday a man threw a bag at Amtrack officials at Penn Station and yelled "bomb". He was not shot and killed.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/25/penn.station.ap/index.html

Although on a music-related note NYC police can be violent over-reactors as well. See story below on how Broken Social Scene's Dave Newfeld was beaten by police officers last week before a performance in New York:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/news/05-07/19.shtml

[Parkey]

Wonderful, what a pleasant view of the world. So people are not accountable for their mistakes anymore? It is not like the person was arrested and disgraced by being accussed of terrorism (then let go). He was shot more times than is required to subdue a person with a bomb. This is a serious issue and cannot be written off by appeals to "climate of London at the moment".

For interest sake, yesterday a man threw a bag at Amtrack officials at Penn Station and yelled "bomb". He was not shot and killed.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/25/penn.station.ap/index.html
I presume you're reading into everything in such an extreme manner to make a point, but I wasn't suggesting for a moment that this should be written off as a sign of the times. Luckily the police shoot dead (on average) 2 people year in the UK and there is always a thorough inquiry into these things that usually results in the police involved being tried in a criminal court.

I think if someone chucked a bag at the police and shouted "bomb" here they wouldn't shoot him either.

The reason they shpt him 8 times was due to the rounds used by British police. They are far 'weaker' than standard ammo in case they are accidently shot into passers by etc. It takes a minimum of 4 shots to kill.

[ms.peachy]

I don't believe anyone thinks it was anything other than apalling. But I don't think anyone's interests are served by flippancy. This "Oh, so shoot anyone who is brown" business is not on, and does nothing to further the discussion. That's not what happened, and it's not what is going to happen. It is a far more complex issue than that.

[Freebasser]

The officers will get theres, either in life or the afterlife

The officer who shot this man had a horrible decision to make. He made a decision that he saw right at the time to kill one man in order to perhaps save the lives of everyone aboard that tube train carriage. He was following his orders to the letter. If that had have been a suicide bomber and he hadn't have acted, there could very well be the remains of 20 or more people being scraped off the walls of the tube.

He is probably sitting at home right now feeling very shaken and I don't think he will take much joy in having killed an innocent man. A lot of it is down to the fact that we are currently using the same shoot to kill policy that is enforced in Israel, because, in case you didn't know, we have had 8 suicide bomb incidents in 2 weeks and it is highly likely that there will be more in the very near future.

This is the first time suicide bombings have ever happened in Western Europe, and a lot of difficult decisions have to be made and to suggest that the officer who shot the victim will "get his in the end" is both insensitive and moronic.

[g-mile7]

The officer who shot this man had a horrible decision to make. He made a decision that he saw right at the time to kill one man in order to perhaps save the lives of everyone aboard that tube train carriage. He was following his orders to the letter. If that had have been a suicide bomber and he hadn't have acted, there could very well be the remains of 20 or more people being scraped off the walls of the tube.

He is probably sitting at home right now feeling very shaken and I don't think he will take much joy in having killed an innocent man. A lot of it is down to the fact that we are currently using the same shoot to kill policy that is enforced in Israel, because, in case you didn't know, we have had 8 suicide bomb incidents in 2 weeks and it is highly likely that there will be more in the very near future.

This is the first time suicide bombings have ever happened in Western Europe, and a lot of difficult decisions have to be made and to suggest that the officer who shot the victim will "get his in the end" is both insensitive and moronic.



it's not moronic. It isnt insenstive. An inncoent man lost his life due to his (the offciers) parnoia. But if you had read my whole post instead of taking out of context one line (meant to diffuse the whole right or wrong bout the shooting and show why he did it and how in the end if he was wrong he will get his) you'd see I agreed with the shooting. Obviosuly you didn't read that in-depth

[Michelle*s_Farm]

I think if someone chucked a bag at the police and shouted "bomb" here they wouldn't shoot him either.

The reason they shpt him 8 times was due to the rounds used by British police. They are far 'weaker' than standard ammo in case they are accidently shot into passers by etc. It takes a minimum of 4 shots to kill.

Fascinating. I did not know that about UK bullets. Perhaps they are made of some plastic / rubber synthetic. Indeed the US appears to be a more "trigger-happy" culture.

[paul jones]

I wisdh the gun crazy cop fascists would go and shoot the entire cast of Eastenders

that shit has got to stop!

[g-mile7]

I wisdh the gun crazy cop fascists would go and shoot the entire cast of Eastenders

that shit has got to stop!


all I know it this...in the end theres no way to say if the cop was right or wrong thus the whole he'll see in the end...but given tha fact the dude did run away with some odd cops yelling at him and had acted suspicious there was reason to shoot and kill better that then take a chance, which I mentioned all before I hope Freebaser understands what I meant dont want him getting it twisted with me'.

[ms.peachy]

An inncoent man lost his life due to his (the offciers) parnoia.
g I understand what you have said about the shooting. However, I would have to take exception to classifying it being down to 'paranoia'. This is not an imagined situation. This is our reality right now. I think it is possible that this may come down to faulty inteligence information about the house under surveillance, but I do not for a minute that the police officer was 'paranoid'. He was faced with an incredibly difficult decision, and he made the decision he felt he needed to take to protect the public. Not out of some delusion, but out of real circumstances. That is a huge difference.

[g-mile7]

g I understand what you have said about the shooting. However, I would have to take exception to classifying it being down to 'paranoia'. This is not an imagined situation. This is our reality right now. I think it is possible that this may come down to faulty inteligence information about the house under surveillance, but I do not for a minute that the police officer was 'paranoid'. He was faced with an incredibly difficult decision, and he made the decision he felt he needed to take to protect the public. Not out of some delusion, but out of real circumstances. That is a huge difference.


well parnoia it is, is it legit and understandable yes. I never said it was not legit. The whole point is this...I agreed with what happened simple as that. I dont see why my true meaning is being taken out of context so bad. The fact is, like I have said before, dude not only was acting supscious in wadrobe but fled cops and lead them on chase like he was hiding something. Thus legit reason for the parnoia, legit reason to open fire just incase. And if the offcier was wrong for killing an innocent man, then he will get his....but if y'all heard me I am saying I dont think he was wrong at all. Theres no need to explain anymore then that

[paul jones]

well said g-mile

all I know is that if I had cops pointing at me I would definitley not run

[g-mile7]

well said g-mile

all I know is that if I had cops pointing at me I would definitley not run


thats bout as simple logic as it gets. and thanks man

[paul jones]

thats bout as simple logic as it gets. and thanks man

*fives* (y)

[g-mile7]

*fives* (y)


as always (y)

[ms.peachy]

And if the offcier was wrong for killing an innocent man, then he will get his....but if y'all heard me I am saying I dont think he was wrong at all. Theres no need to explain anymore then that
Fair enough.

[RobMoney]

He didn't want to get caught by the police because he was in the country illegally, earning money for his family back in Brazil, correct?

I can understand why he'd run.
People generally don't think they'll be shot if they run. They generally don't think about anything but where they are going to run to get away. He probably didn't even realize all the circumstances, his coat, his location in the subway, his resembling a person from the Middle East, and so on.

[Documad]

That is good. It will be important to see what is revealed. We are basing a lot of debate on somewhat unreliable information from the media.
I agree. Which is why it's irresponsible to accuse the police officers of manslaughter or murder.


I'm NOT talking about RobMoney's comments in this thread. But I've noticed a bunch of times on this board when people who were supposedly older and/or more experienced encouraging people to run from the police when pursued. It's been stupid advice every time, and I hope that shit will finally stop.

I don't know where the rest of the Americans who post here live, but where I live this kind of thing certainly isn't routine. When an officer shoots a suspect it is subjected to intense scrutiny from the press, prosecutor's office, and police. MORE SO, in my experience, when the officer is white and the suspect black.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

I agree. Which is why it's irresponsible to accuse the police officers of manslaughter or murder.
.

This is quickly becoming a serious international incident that challenges current 'wisdom' on how to ethically fight a war on terror (see reactions from Brazil where some people are calling it an "assassination"):

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/07/25/bombings.brazil.ap/index.html

I do not think that manslaughter or murder charges are unreasonable. They may not get convicted, but they should be filed and argued in a court of law. When police unintentionally kill an innocent person it is generally called "wrongful death" (see below for US example).

http://www.lawcore.com/legal-information/06-21-05.html

However, in this case the officers intentionally killed an innocent person based on little more than a bad hunch. This requires more serious charges than "wrongful death" presumably.

[Documad]

This is quickly becoming a serious international incident that challenges current 'wisdom' on how to ethically fight a war on terror.
I'm in favor of debate about how to fight in general, but it's nice to have complete facts before drawing conclusions in any one case.

I do not think that manslaughter or murder charges are unreasonable. They may not get convicted, but they should be filed and argued in a court of law. When police unintentionally kill an innocent person it is generally called "wrongful death" (see below for US example).

However, in this case the officers intentionally killed an innocent person based on little more than a bad hunch. This requires more serious charges than "wrongful death" presumably.
Are you a law student? You sound like one. :)

If not, there is a big difference between a criminal case (where cops presumably go to prison if found guilty) and a civil case (where a victim's family gets money damages). A prosecutor isn't supposed to bring criminal charges unless he/she thinks the case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal courts aren't supposed to be used as a teaching example. Wrongful death is a claim in a civil case. The cops themselves are unlikely to have much money and the government is often immune from suit--because the law wants to protect police officers from liability when they have to make split second decisions to protect lives.

I only know about the US though (and only my little part of the US)--I know next to nothing about the English legal system.


Question for anyone: When exactly should the police shoot a suspected bomber? At any point before the bomb goes off? Or wait until after the bomb goes off and if he survives slap the cuffs on.

[GetYourWarOn]

Question for anyone: When exactly should the police shoot a suspected bomber? At any point before the bomb goes off? Or wait until after the bomb goes off and if he survives slap the cuffs on.


define "suspected bomber"...it's kind of an ambiguous term.

[GetYourWarOn]

[Michelle*s_Farm]

...there is a big difference between a criminal case (where cops presumably go to prison if found guilty) and a civil case (where a victim's family gets money damages). A prosecutor isn't supposed to bring criminal charges unless he/she thinks the case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal courts aren't supposed to be used as a teaching example. Wrongful death is a claim in a civil case. The cops themselves are unlikely to have much money and the government is often immune from suit--because the law wants to protect police officers from liability when they have to make split second decisions to protect lives.


I like your clarifications above on the civil versus criminal court systems in the US. Criminal proceedings should not be used as teaching examples per se; although I think we need an international case law precedent to prevent violations of basic human rights in the name of the "war on terror". Western governments need to be accountable to an international body of impartial litigators. I do find it strange that governments appear to be immune from criminal charges (unless they lose a war).

[Michelle*s_Farm]

define "suspected bomber"...it's kind of an ambiguous term.

Indeed it is. The person must have been seen to have an apparent weapon (or clear connection to the weapon, like a detonator) and use it in a threatening fashion (verbally or written) before violent action (including subdue as a first option so as to interrogate suspect later) by police should be taken. Otherwise it is simply a criminal action.

The shoot to kill option should really be a last resort after it is very clear that it is the only way to prevent the bomb from exploding and harming many. The Jean Charles de Menezes case was not that way at all. If it was the police officials would have clearly stated that he was connected to terrorism and a bomb was seen in his possession.

[Documad]

define "suspected bomber"...it's kind of an ambiguous term.
That's kind of the point. By the time you KNOW he's a bomber, it's too late to save the innocent lives. :)

I think we need an international case law precedent to prevent violations of basic human rights in the name of the "war on terror". Western governments need to be accountable to an international body of impartial litigators. I do find it strange that governments appear to be immune from criminal charges (unless they lose a war).
You probably weren't around, but we had a thread where a bunch of people went INSANE at the idea that the US Supreme Court should even consider what other countries' laws say, as one of four reasons why we shouldn't execute people who committed their crimes when they were children.

You'll find a lot of smart people discussing the use of international law. But imo, no American president can ever agree to be truly subject to international laws. Because Americans rock and everyone else can go fly a kite. :rolleyes:

[GetYourWarOn]

That's kind of the point. By the time you KNOW he's a bomber, it's too late to save the innocent lives. :)





i guess the problem i have with your point is that we are all suspected bombers. ;[

[Michelle*s_Farm]

That's kind of the point. By the time you KNOW he's a bomber, it's too late to save the innocent lives. :)


You probably weren't around, but we had a thread where a bunch of people went INSANE at the idea that the US Supreme Court should even consider what other countries' laws say, as one of four reasons why we shouldn't execute people who committed their crimes when they were children.

You'll find a lot of smart people discussing the use of international law. But imo, no American president can ever agree to be truly subject to international laws. Because Americans rock and everyone else can go fly a kite. :rolleyes:

Missed that thread. Thanks for bringing it up. It is interesting that many Americans feel that they should only be accountable to their own country. Some people in America like the Michigan Militia (e.g., Tim McVeigh and his ilk) do not even believe they should be subject to American law. I see the idea of being above the law (even US law) and distrusting non-American policy as a bit of a problem. It seems to be linked to several of the world's problems from Gitmo, Iraq, Kyoto, public use of automatic weapons, drug laws, and same-sex marriage. Perhaps hubris is an unfortunate root cause of this elitism.

[ms.peachy]

']http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs.htm

Here. Maybe you see a few loose ends to your little theories.
Whatsamatter, kid? Disappointed that not enough people were paying attention to your kook rant over on general political? Came looking for a little hot conspiracy action over here on the side?

[Beckalina]

your avatar made my eyes spasm :(

[Beckalina]

you care enough to post, innit