Man shot by mistake?

[alibabba]

I hear on the news that the guy who got shot in London the other day was not connected to terrorism in any way.

 

It seems that the cops thought that since he ran from them and had on some loose clothing, that he was a suicide bomber, so they whacked him.

 

Sorry about that--uh?

[abeefaria]

Why would you run from the cops if you had nothing to hide, especially if they have their guns trained on you? This guy deserves the Darwin Award if nothing else.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Although I do note that the police had him pinned down to the ground in the subway car, before they shot him.

[Pangloss]

That's the story I've read, that they chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the floor, and plunked five rounds into his skull. Presumably the reason for this would be that he would have some sort of trigger that would allow him to blow himself up after being caught.

 

Unfortunately I think you need something more here than just "well he looked like a Pakistani, he came from Leeds, he had a dark overcoat on, and he didn't respond to verbal directions from police". That's not sufficient to warrant an instant death sentence. You need some evidence of an actual device, like wires trailing out of his coat, and I'm hoping something like that will come from office testimony as the story develops.

 

In the US, such a case would have Jesse Jackson marching on Washington in a matter of hours. But I still have a very positive impression of British law enforcement at the moment in spite of this incident (and I'm keeping an open mind about the incident itself). The fact that they have so quickly apologized is a very positive sign, and I'm certainly not left with an "LAPD" kind of impression. I think it's clear that the British people can still trust their law enforcement officials. It's understandable that this will raise doubts and uncertainty, but the long-term outlook is still way positive.

 

Just my two bits, of course.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

A witness did say that there appeared to be wires trailing out of his coat.

[Pangloss]

A witness did[/i'] say that there appeared to be wires trailing out of his coat.

 

That's why I mentioned that particular bit of info, but I have not yet read whether that was the same guy or not. Do you know for sure? Or is this one of those things that we're still waiting for the full story on?

[Tetrahedrite]

A witness did[/i'] say that there appeared to be wires trailing out of his coat.

He was an electrician.......make of that what you will........

Gesio de Avila' date=' a work colleague, said Mr Menezes ran simply because he was late for a job to install a fire alarm....

Mr Menezes was not a terrorist. He was an electrician trying to meek out a living in London. He had been living legally there for three years. [/quote']

[alibabba]

Things like this happen.

 

It happens here in the US and all over the world.

 

Givin the circumstances in London recently, it is understandable. The question, at least in my mind is, it it excusable?

 

Should the shooters be charged with anything?

[Ophiolite]

Why would you run from the cops if you had nothing to hide, especially if they have their guns trained on you? This guy deserves the Darwin Award if nothing else.

1. They were plainclothes police. Can you tell the difference between a policeman in civilian clothes, an ordinary member of the public, a mugger, or a terrorist?

2. If you suspected you were being followed from your home by one or more individuals who were behaving in a suspicious manner would you or would you not be nervous, especially if this occured in a city that had been the recent victim of terrorist violence and which could well be the victim of some different form of terrorism. [Kidnap and behead a few expatriate workers in London and watch the economy grind to a halt as the immigrants - legal and illegal - beat a retreat.]

3. Now, nervous at the general situation, and concerned by the specific cicrcumstances one of these individuals calls out something in a foreign language that you do not clearly make out, but the tone of which sounds threatening.

4. Do you -

a) Run for your life?

b) Hang around to find out if it is all something quite innocent?

5. Darwin awards? I suggest we institute an abeefaria award for gross insensitivity and lack of imagination. And the winner is.........

[YT2095]

well last I heard his family are thinking of sueing the police for it.

actualy I feel just as sorry for those lads doing their job to protect us as I do for that lads family.

 

they can`t shoot the legs as that allows time to detonate, a chest shot could detonate it for you by accident, that only leaves shoot to kill

 

a typical case of being between a Rock and a Hard Place

[Mokele]

3. Now, nervous at the general situation, and concerned by the specific cicrcumstances one of these individuals calls out something in a foreign language that you do not clearly make out, but the tone of which sounds threatening.

 

I would like to note that this is the fault of the individual in question. He lived and worked in London for 4 years, and if he couldn't understand the language that's nobody's fault but his own due to sheer laziness. Additionally, the police report that he "challenged police and refused to obey orders" (cnn.com), indicating that he knew the language enough to understand and respond negatively.

 

While I can understand the tension in the city and in individuals given the recent events, that is not an excuse for running from what you *know* are police officers.

 

And even if there's the possibility that they are impersonating police officers, that's still not an excuse, as in that case they'd kill you anyway. Furthermore, the arguement of "I suspected they might have not been real cops" can be applied to *any* situation from this down to traffic tickets. And there are ways of dealing with it, like saying "I don't think you're real cops, so I'll only surrender in a place with video surveilance or somesuch to ensure my safety" etc.

 

Frankly, I'm with the heartless bastard side on this. It was his own bloody fault.

 

Mokele

[Aardvark]

After repeated suicude attacks on the London Undergound, anyone who, when challenged by armed police chooses to run into the Underground is going to be seen as a likely suicide bomber. The police have the choice of either allowing a potential detonation killing innocent bystanders or shooting the suspect dead. It is sad but under the circumstances the greater risk is to allow a detonation.

 

I would be upset if the police did not respond so sharply to possible suicide bombers.

 

This individual had the opportunity to stop. He choose to run and mendacious excuses about how he might have been scared of being kidnapped and beheaded (this is London remember, not Bagdad) or how he might have language problems (he'd been in London more than 3 years) don't hack it. He should have stopped, instead he put himself and the police in a situation where they had to assume the worst.

 

It was interesting to see how quickly the dead man relatives started to talk about money.

[YT2095]

anyone else here (other than myself) had a thought as to what our lads in blue are going through at this moment also? they TOO will have to live with that for the rest of their lives, they were doing their job, and doing it excellently. there was a very regretable mistake(s) made, but no one could in good conscience blame the guys that shot him. and yet they`ll blame themselves forever I`m sure

 

and the WORST part is... those Terrorist still alive that we`re hunting are prolly laughing their balls off at the whole thing

[Pangloss]

But what criteria did they use to decide that he needed to have five bullets placed immediately in his brain without any recourse whatsoever? In other words, what is to stop them from deciding that YOU need to die right this second?

 

In the US at the moment, there is significant outcry over police use of force on suspects who do not comply with verbal commands. The force in question? *Tasers*. Not bullets in the brain. When the police actually *shoot* unarmed people, the only time it's ruled justified is if there are witnesses who say they thought the person was armed, or they were threatening people's lives in some other clear and obvious manner, such as driving a car at them.

 

Again, I'm not saying they were wrong, but this question of criteria, I think, is the most pressing issue at the moment.

[YT2095]

But what criteria did they use to decide that he needed to have five bullets placed immediately in his brain without any recourse whatsoever? In other words' date=' what is to stop them from deciding that YOU need to die right this second?

 

In the US at the moment, there is significant outcry over police use of force on suspects who do not comply with verbal commands. The force in question? *Tasers*. Not bullets in the brain. When the police actually *shoot* unarmed people, the only time it's ruled justified is if there are witnesses who say they thought the person was armed, or they were threatening people's lives in some other clear and obvious manner, such as driving a car at them.

 

Again, I'm not saying they were wrong, but this question of criteria, I think, is the most pressing issue at the moment.[/quote']

 

quite simply I present no threat, potential or otherwise, secondly if I was asked to Stop by someone that was armed, I would STOP, no questions asked, even if it were a mugger, there`s nothing I own that`s worth my life, they can take it all!

 

as for Tazers, yeah, High Voltage, probably even better at accidental detonation than a bullet! not exactly ideal either is it?

[Aardvark]

But what criteria[/i'] did they use to decide that he needed to have five bullets placed immediately in his brain without any recourse whatsoever?

 

He had been identified as behaving in a potentially suspicious manner. He was followed until he made to move into a Tube station. At this point he was challenged and ordered to stop. He ran into the Tube station and toward a train ignoring repeated demands to stop.

 

As you can see there was no 'immediate' decision to shoot him. He was shot only after refusing to stop and running into a crowded Tube station.

 

There was, therefore, plenty of recourse, not none.

 

In other words, what is to stop them from deciding that YOU need to die right this second?

 

 

The fact that if challenged by police i won't charge into a crowded Tube station.

 

In the US at the moment, there is significant outcry over police use of force on suspects who do not comply with verbal commands. The force in question? *Tasers*. Not bullets in the brain. When the police actually *shoot* unarmed people, the only time it's ruled justified is if there are witnesses who say they thought the person was armed, or they were threatening people's lives in some other clear and obvious manner, such as driving a car at them.

 

That would be reasonable in all cases except for suicide bombers. We are not talking about the possiblity that a suspect might pull a gun and shoot someone. We are talking about a possibility that a suspect will detonate a bomb, killing large numbers of bystanders. That scenario requires different guidelines, shooting to wound isn't the answer as it can't prevent a suicide bomber detonating the bomb, the police are obliged to shoot to kill.

 

 

Again, I'm not saying they were wrong, but this question of criteria, I think, is the most pressing issue at the moment.

 

If someone is acting suspiciously then when challenged runs into a crowded place where a detonation would cause a large number of causalties the police must premeptively kill that person. It is not an option it is an obligation.

[Pangloss]

Let's examine a hypothetical:

 

An off-duty (non-uniformed) policeman is walking down the street and sees a man wearing heavy winter coat, standing outside a playground full of children. The policeman thinks "july.. overcoat.. hmm....", and he pulls his weapon and points it at the man, instructing him to lie face down on the ground.

 

The man, an atmospheric scientist, was on his way home from the airport following a trip to Antarctica, was watching his son play ball on the playground. He has a hearing disability, and he does not understand the officer. All he knows is that he's done nothing wrong, and there's a man with a weapon pointed at him, screaming.

 

He turns and runs. The policemen catches him, but because he's near the playground and the threat of terrorism has been high lately, he decides to plant five bullets in his brain, just to be sure.

 

What you're saying is that that's okay? You have no problem with this?

 

I think you're going to find yourself in a minority.

 

 

We are not talking about the possiblity that a suspect might pull a gun and shoot someone. We are talking about a possibility that a suspect will detonate a bomb, killing large numbers of bystanders.

 

Right, but there was no evidence that he had a bomb, he was only running from police. Would the shooting have been more justified if he were a purse snatcher? He'd be running from police then too, but surely that crime wouldn't warrant an instant death sentence.

 

The fact that he wasn't responding to commands may simply mean he didn't understand the language. And the policemen weren't uniformed. Nor did he reveal a bomb on his person. Is that really enough to warrant an instant death sentence?

 

Which is better? A 10% chance that a number of people will die, or a 100% chance that one person will die who may be completely innocent? I don't know the answer to that question, because I am not (a) God, or (b) an utterly inflexible ideologue. I submit that only one of those two types can answer that question.

 

I think most people are going to say that that question is way too difficult to answer, and that therefore some additional cautions and constraints are called for. The police should add the additional standard of having to see some evidence of an actual bomb on the person before planting bullets in their brain.

 

I believe you will find that this standard will be enacted very soon. In fact I'd put money on it, if it hasn't happened already.

[Aardvark]

Let's examine a hypothetical:

 

An off-duty (non-uniformed) policeman is walking down the street and sees a man wearing heavy winter coat' date=' standing outside a playground full of children. The policeman thinks "july.. overcoat.. hmm....", and he pulls his weapon and points it at the man, instructing him to lie face down on the ground.

 

The man, an atmospheric scientist, was on his way home from the airport following a trip to Antarctica, was watching his son play ball on the playground. He has a hearing disability, and he does not understand the officer. All he knows is that he's done nothing wrong, and there's a man with a weapon pointed at him, screaming.

 

He turns and runs. The policemen catches him, but because he's near the playground and the threat of terrorism has been high lately, he decides to plant five bullets in his brain, just to be sure.[/quote']

 

 

For a start off duty British police do not carry guns.

 

Other than that it is still a highly improbable scenario. A recently returned scientist from Antartica still wearing his greatcoat with a hearing disabliliy, but presumably no hearing aid? Even if we accept this scenario a policeman who suspects he may be up to no good will not scream or try and panic him. The policeman has been trained to be calm and authoritive, no screaming involved. Unless that scientist has a very bad conscience for some reason he is not going to run anywhere, let alone get 5 bullets in his brain.

 

What you're saying is that that's okay? You have no problem with this?

 

I think you're going to find yourself in a minority.

 

Shades of strawmanning there. Firstly the scenario is highly unlikely. Secondly' date=' lets look at it from another angle, how are people going to feel if a policeman hesitates to act allowing a suicide bomber to detonate in a playground full of children? That isn't such an unlikely scenario, it's already happened in Iraq.

 

 

 

Right, but there was no evidence that he had a bomb, he was only running from police[/i']..

 

If you are refering to the shooting on the Tube, the police did have reason to suspect he might be a suicide bomber.

 

Would the shooting have been more justified if he were a purse snatcher? He'd be running from police then too, but surely that crime wouldn't warrant an instant death sentence.

 

Irrevant aside. The police never use guns when dealing with such criminals as purse snatchers. If a purse snatcher were to be halted by armend police he would know this was something far more important than purse theft and he'd stop.

 

The fact that he wasn't responding to commands may simply mean he didn't understand the language.

 

That's not good enough. You can't give a possible suicide bomber the benefit of the doubt that he might not understand what the police mean where they are telling him to halt.

 

And the policemen weren't uniformed. Nor did he reveal a bomb on his person. Is that really enough to warrant an instant death sentence?

 

You are happily evading the pertinent points. It wasn't an 'instant death sentence' Plain clothes police or not is irrelrevant, if men point guns at you in England and order you to halt, show your hands, ectera, then it's the police. No one else does that, England isn't the wild west.

 

On being confronted this man ran straight into the Tube station torwards a packed train. Under those circumastances shooting to kill was warranted.

 

Which is better? A 10% chance that a number of people will die, or a 100% chance that one person will die who may be completely innocent? I don't know the answer to that question, because I am not (a) God, or (b) an utterly inflexible ideologue. I submit that only one of those two types can answer that question.

 

 

Actually, in the real world that question does have to be answered. The police don't have the luxury of your fine philosophical digressions. They have to make a judgement call, if a person is fitting the profile of a suicide bomber and is refusing to stop and is running toward a packed train then the police need to make a decision. Considering the 8 bombs this month against exactly such targets the police are quite right to shoot the suspect in those circumstances.

 

It's all well and good stating that a question is unanswerable, but it does have to be answered. It's a matter of preventing more slaughter, not playing God or demonstrating some adamanite idealogy.

 

I think most people are going to say that that question is way too difficult to answer, and that therefore some additional cautions and constraints are called for. The police should add the additional standard of having to see some evidence of an actual bomb on the person before planting bullets in their brain.

 

I think most people are more intelligent than that.

 

Burdening the police with the standard of seeing a bomb which by definition is out of sight would be idiotic. Suicide bombers hide the bombs on their person, under clothing or in bags. Instead police use their judgement as to the potential threat someone poses by their behaviour and then try and stop that person. The shooting is done only if the police judge there is an imminent danger of a detonation risking the lives of innocent bystanders.

 

I believe you will find that this standard will be enacted very soon. In fact I'd put money on it, if it hasn't happened already.

 

I doubt it. Most people don't live in your lovely fantasy land. They actually have to confront the reality of suicide bombers rather than agonise about 'unanswerable' questions.

[atinymonkey]

The fact that he wasn't responding to commands may simply mean he didn't understand the language. And the policemen weren't uniformed. Nor did he reveal a bomb on his person. Is that really enough to warrant an instant death sentence?

Actually, he fully understood the Police. He knew who they were, and what they were asking. He ran anyway, for one of two reasons that we are aware of: -

 

1) He had jumped the turnstile. It's possible he thought that they were chasing him for not buying a ticket, all 40 armed police , in which case he was being monumentally stupid.

 

2)His visa to work in England had run out. He could have thought that they were immigration officers who were chasing him, in which case it was monumentally bad luck.

 

Either way, it was a tragic mistake. It was no mysterious arctic adventurer, it was just a confused and scared man who did the wrong thing at the wrong time. It's not the first time an innocent has been killed by the police, it won't be the last.

 

I suppose we just wait for the inquest to finish to find out the full story: -

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

 

I'm not sure what you know about London Met, but they are renowned for being no nonsense police. Real hard cases. Jean Charles would have known that, living in London. He knew about the bombs, and the security, but still ran. They are not 'what's all this then' bobbys, they mean business.

[In My Memory]

Mokele,

 

I would like to note that this is the fault of the individual in question. He lived and worked in London for 4 years, and if he couldn't understand the language that's nobody's fault but his own due to sheer laziness.

The man has been identified as a legal resident of London named Jean Charles de Menezes, he was Brazilian, and he spoke English fluently.

 

Frankly, I'm with the heartless bastard side on this. It was his own bloody fault.

He was a citizen who was executed by the police on a basis of what? What did he do to look like a terrorist? According to CNN News, he was petrified by the site of three plain-clothes officers chasing him and waving guns.

 

Almost everything about this is just plain wrong:

1) the police shot at the guy after he had already been tackled to the ground and subdued

2) and its completely irresponsible to pull your gun out on a guy with other officers piled on top of you

3) the police officers acted with excessive force, they should have used a mase or nightstick or similar incapacitating device rather guns.

 

This guy didnt deserve to die - he simply made an error in judgement in choosing to rrom plain clothes officers coming at him with guns. And the police officers, for killing an innocent person, they should be prosecuted - if they arent, then it sends a message that killing innocent people is ok.

[Ophiolite]

Frankly I am appalled at the bulk of the responses from individuals whose input I had previously come to respect. Unless you all have some miraculous high level contacts then you, like me, do not know what happened.

I will take one item that especially infuriated me. From Mokele "He lived and worked in London for 4 years, and if he couldn't understand the language that's nobody's fault but his own due to sheer laziness."

You arrogant little asshole. I work in a company where if there are ten people in a room there is a good chance they represent at least six nationalities and speak a dozen languages between them. All will speak english, with varying degrees of fluency. Some of the most fluent will however have major difficulty with any or all of the following - unfamiliar phrases, familiar phrases out of context, colloquial english, regional accents.

And you really think laziness merits eight bullets?

Screw your insensitive disrespect.

[Douglas]

It was a lose lose situation for the police. If the man had a bomb, and if the police didn't shoot prior to detonation, and if 30 people were killed, the police would have been scalped..........and may have been sued by the families of 30 victims.

[Thomas Kirby]

And if the man did have a bomb, I would estimate about a 0.000 percent chance that he would not have detonated it while being chased. If it were on a timer and he could not detonate it himself, there again there is no use in holding him down and shooting him in the head. When they realize this, what are the police going to do? Have snipers ready to gun down anyone they point out as a suspect?

 

I don't care what happened. They need to stop this foolishness immediately. Just the fact that they can't see what is wrong with this, a plainclothes detachment acting like a gang of ruffians and executing a man who quite rightly ran away from them, tells me that they should not be allowed even so high an office as dogcatcher.

 

 

It was a lose lose situation for the police. If the man had a bomb, and if the police didn't shoot prior to detonation, and if 30 people were killed, the police would have been scalped..........and may have been sued by the families of 30 victims.

[Pangloss]

Good posts from Ophi and IMM.

 

The police never use guns when dealing with such criminals as purse snatchers.

 

You've missed the point. The police use guns when they don't know what they're dealing with. They used guns here, not knowing what they had. So it's certainly possible that they could use a gun on a purse snatcher, not knowing that it's merely a purse snatcher that's running from them, and not a terrorist.

 

 

You are happily evading the pertinent points. It wasn't an 'instant death sentence' Plain clothes police or not is irrelrevant, if men point guns at you in England and order you to halt, show your hands, ectera, then it's the police. No one else does that, England isn't the wild west.

 

But that's *exactly what happened*. The man didn't show a bomb (couldn't, because he didn't have one), so all he did was fail to respond to instructions and run from the police. That could have happened because he didn't understand them, and/or because he was another (lesser) kind of criminal. I have made a prima facie case here, there's no denying this. He was sumarily executed, no ifs, ands or buts.

 

I've never suggested that this makes England "the wild west", and I don't feel that comparison is valid. *That* would be an example of straw-manning.

[Pangloss]

Reworking my scenario to include the revelation that the victim spoke fluent English and had just committed a minor legal offense. Also adjusting "off duty" to "undercover", and "Antarctica" to "Scottish Highlands" to please Aardvark, who took issue with the likelihood of my first scenario.

 

---------

 

An undercover policeman is walking down the street and sees a man wearing heavy winter coat, standing outside a playground full of children. The policeman thinks "july.. overcoat.. hmm.... must be a terrorist", and he pulls his weapon and points it at the man, instructing him to lie face down on the ground.

 

The man is on his way home from the airport following a trip to the Scottish Highlands (I don't care, just pick a freaking cold place somebody might be returning to nice warm England from in July, yeesh), and stops to watch his son play ball on the playground. He had just grabbed a newspaper from a stand nearby without paying, so when the policeman confronts him, he figures it's about that. He decides to make a run for it.

 

The policemen catches him and subdues him on the ground immediately, but because he's near the playground and the threat of terrorism has been high lately, he decides to plant five bullets in his brain, just to be sure.

 

Voila, identical scenario.

 

Are you sure that's what you want your policemen to go around doing?