Man shot by mistake?

[Douglas]

If the terrorist was already prepared to die by detonating a bomb that he was carrying, he wasn't going to hold off just because the police nabbed him before he reached his destination.

It's against the laws of Islam to commit suicide, 'cept in the case of the fundalmentalist laws, which call for smattering of infidels to be included in the event.....which brings to mind Egyptair flight 990, where the kamikaze co-pilot commited sui, but never determined if it was self service sui or infidel wasting.

[abeefaria]

1. They were plainclothes police. Can you tell the difference between a policeman in civilian clothes' date=' 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.........

 

1) Gee, that's tough, a group of white males holding weapons in public telling me to freeze or somethink like that, um, I'm going to have to go with them being cops, but I won't exlude the possibility of them being terrorists trying to kidnap me in public, in the day and without wearing masks or...

2) If I was being followed, I would run TO the police, not from them.

3) 3,4 because the cops in no way resemble terrorists, i would probably do what they say.

5) I give you the first abeefaria award, congratulations Is that being too insensitive to your feelings? I am not concerned with sensitivity, I am concerned about the destruction of all militant muslims who want to kill me and mine.

Lack of imagination, how in hell does that tie in? My imagination is fertile, but then, I don't care what others think about that, d'oh, I am being insensitive again.

[abeefaria]

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' date=' like me, do [b']not [/b]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.

 

Ophiolite, well screw you and your pc-ness. Limp wrists need to shut up now and let MEN handle these problems. When the problems are over, then you can go and cry about how poor so and so was treated because he didn't know this and that. BTW, are you cheering for the terrorists?

[Thomas Kirby]

Uh, yeah, but aren't suicide bombers pretty exclusively Islamic? Don't infidel police officers count as hard targets for the fagans who send those poor boys out?

 

I cannot possibly accept as right the idea that a bombing suspect should be shot in the head to try to save lives. The first one they did it to, they have already admitted to be innocent of any involvement in bombing. He ran away from plainclothes officers who may well have been pretty scruffy looking to "blend in" in an area where there may be gangs. Well, any strange city could have gangs near a subway terminal if it isn't the highest rent district. His running away was justifiable. Shooting on suspicion is not.

 

It does go to prove that Islam can make dogmeat of Christian civilization pretty easily. They can psyche us to the max and we just can't let go of it, some of us are willing to kill those who want us to behave sanely, and we're more screwed than a team of mixed-gender underage prostitutes at a Republican convention. With wellies on. It is our fault that we are this easy to do it to because we don't want to be any better than that. We even think it's a capital crime to be better than that. Myself, I'm willing to try being the person or persons who behave more sanely than that, but a lot of my friends might kill me or lock me up for it.

 

And just for abeefaria: You haven't the slightest clue what real men would do about a thing like this. I am very well going to stand in your way. What you said in the post above mine is just downright creepy. Don't let concerns like innocence get in our "way", or concerns that the person who is running away may well believe that some kind of terrorist death squad is after him, like they used to do in their home country. Shoot them all, God will sort them out and justify us. That sounds so sick.

 

It's against the laws of Islam to commit suicide, 'cept in the case of the fundalmentalist laws, which call for smattering of infidels to be included in the event.....which brings to mind Egyptair flight 990, where the kamikaze co-pilot commited sui, but never determined if it was self service sui or infidel wasting.

[abeefaria]

I am going to attempt to refrain from getting into politcal debates here as I can get worked up rather easily. I joined this community to learn more about science anyway and that is what I want to stick to.

 

I know some of you (maybe all) won't be shedding any tears over this

 

Peace,

 

mike

[atinymonkey]

I am going to attempt to refrain from getting into politcal debates here as I can get worked up rather easily. I joined this community to learn more about science anyway and that is what I want to stick to.

Funny. I was just going to suggest you leave the thread. You don't seem to appreciate an English point of view on this English problem.

[YT2095]

It's against the laws of Islam to commit suicide, 'cept in the case of the fundalmentalist laws, which call for smattering of infidels to be included in the event.....which brings to mind Egyptair flight 990, where the kamikaze co-pilot commited sui, but never determined if it was self service sui or infidel wasting.

 

there is a loophole used that "Allows" them to commit suicide.

basicly they join the cause, give their lives to allah and wear this white death shroud and perform a funeral type ceremony, after this they are already considered dead. and a dead man cannot commit suicide!

 

twisted yeah, but that`s what they do.

[Ophiolite]

Ophiolite' date='

 

I wonder what you'd say, if as the police were trying to cuff the guy (after subduing him), he had pushed a button and blew up everyone in that subway car.[/quote']Re-read my posts. I am neither criticising nor defending the police action. I am saying we do not currently have the facts to do either. I have presented what I believe to be a plausible explanation for the actions of the Brazillian gentleman. I have done this as a counter to those posters who seem to feel it was pretty much his own fault. Namely:

Abeefaria: This guy deserves the Darwin Award if nothing else.

Mokele: I would like to note that this is the fault of the individual in question. .....It was his own bloody fault.

Aardvark: He choose (sic) to run and mendacious excuses ..........don't hack it.

 

I have no idea what happened, but I do know the man is dead and I believe he deserves a little more respect than are conveyed by the above.

[Ophiolite]

1) Gee, that's tough, a group of white males holding weapons in public telling me to freeze or somethink like that, um, I'm going to have to go with them being cops, but I won't exlude the possibility of them being terrorists .

How strange you assume the cops were white and male. I think that confirms what your earlier posts were merely hinting at.

Ophiolite' date=' well screw you and your pc-ness. Limp wrists need to shut up now and let MEN handle these problems. When the problems are over, then you can go and cry about how poor so and so was treated because he didn't know this and that. BTW, are you cheering for the terrorists?

[/quote'] 1. I abhor political correctness.

2. I am so glad you are comfortable with your testosterone levels.

3. The problems are never over, but we do not need to create new ones by failing to recognise we just killed one of the people we are meant to be protecting.

4. Your remark about cheering for the terrorists was offensive. May I ask what effort you made to go to London and travel by tube, after the first attack, as a way of rejecting the terrorist's intended outcome?

[Severian]

I think there is an issue which has to be cleared up first. Did the police actually say they were police? I have heard it said on the news that they did not, but people here claim that they did.

 

If they did, then I think they were justified in their actions. He was running from the police, disobeying their instructions, comitting an illegal act (the turnstyle) and potentially could have killed innocent civilians with a bomb if not stopped quickly.

 

If they did not, how was he supposed to know they weren't gang members who would shoot him if he stopped? In fact, if they did not say they were police, they officer who shot him should be charged with murder.

[YT2095]

they have to announce themselves by LAW.

[Aardvark]

(This is regarding my example, not the real-life case.) Right, which is why he ran. But what the cop actually suspected him of was being a suicide bomber, so he killed him. Exactly like what happened.

 

You don't seem to understand, in England if a policeman suspects you of theft he will not point a gun at you.

 

 

Are you going to educate everyone on the proper procedure, including tourists and other visitors, or are you just going to continue to SHOOT them?

 

Again, it's really simple. Police don't point guns at normal criminal suspects. If they are pointing a gun at you they suspect you are carrying a deadly weapon.

 

 

No, you don't shoot robbery suspects. You shoot innocent people who act in unexpected ways. I can't imagine why you would think that's *better*, but that's an interesting attempt at deflection, sliding America into the discussion like that. Nothing like a popular target to take the eye off the ball. Keep spinning, I'm sure you'll work out the verbiage to rationalize no-evidence, no-trial killing eventually.

 

I was pointing out the difference in police methods as you clearly have no idea how English police operate and seem to be under the impression that they behave like American police, comments about off duty police carrying guns and armed police arresting people for theft. You lecture about English police procedure but clearly have no understanding about how English police actually operate.

 

But since you brought up American law enforcement, let's talk about that. In America, law enforcement cannot shoot someone based on mere suspicion. There has to be actual evidence of some kind of immediate threat. A gun pointed at someone. A car being driven at someone. That sort of thing. When an officer does break those rules (and it does happen), the officer is arrested and put on trial[/i'].

 

If you'd bothered to actually check the facts you'd find that English also operate under constraints. English police can only shoot someone if they have good reason to believe that is the only way to prevent loss of innocent life. That should be simple enough for you to understand.

 

But not in England (at the moment). Remember, there are NO stated guidelines for this.

 

Wrong, police are not simply put out on the streets and told to shoot at will.

 

 

What they're saying is that ANY UK cop feels your a terrorist, for ANY reason, and you're DEAD.

 

Wrong. Why don't you actually read what i have written? The police officer will shoot to kill as a last resort where it is judged the only way to prevent loss of innocent life.

 

In the US, get pulled over for a traffic ticket and mutter about Al Qaida cops and you might get tasered. Pull that in England now and you might DIE.

 

Wrong.

 

Late for a court hearing and you run breathless into the courthouse? DEAD.

 

Wrong

 

Quip to a security guard at the airport about that shoe bomber case? DEAD.

 

Wrong

 

Not "facing federal charges" like in the states, just plain old DEAD. No trial. No discussion. No debate. DEAD.

 

Wrong.

 

 

I'm sure you think I'm exaggerating or carried away,

 

Right.

 

but remember, my contention and prediction is that this is in fact NOT how British law enforcement is going to operate[/b']. They WILL institute guidelines,

 

They already have guidelines. They only use deadly force as a last resort where it is judged to only way to save innocent lives. How hard is that for you to understand?

 

and it will NOT be how you think it's going to be -- an open ability by local law to shoot down anyone they think might be a terrorist.

 

Except that isn't what i think, or what i have stated or what i have implied.

 

 

It will NOT be that way. It simply isn't conceivable that an approach like that could possibly work.

 

And it is inconceivable that aerial patrols of penguins will hunt down and apprehend all suicide bombers. It's a good thing that no one on this thread has been calling for that isn't it?

 

 

There have to be guidelines.

 

There are guidelines. Perhaps you should have aquainted yourself with that information before your rant?

[Thomas Kirby]

Aardvark: The criterion here is if the police officer thinks the man might be carrying a bomb. In our only example of the use of this policy, an innocent man was shot dead on suspicion. He was shot to death by a plainclothes officer who apparently did not announce that he was police. The fleeing man most likely believed that he was being approached by a gang who was going to rob and kill him, or by terrorists who were going to kill him.

 

What would I think if a terrorist had an opportunity to blow up the station because someone failed to shoot a suspect in the head? I would think that we had to do things our way, not their way. Their way is murdering innocent people.

[atinymonkey]

Thomas: Just because you don't know the situation is not a reason to make shit up. Almost everything you have stated is not substanciated in any of the reports, short of a man being shot. It is pure fantasy.

[YT2095]

Aardvark: The criterion here is if the police officer thinks the man might be carrying a bomb. In our only example of the use of this policy, an innocent man was shot dead on suspicion. He was shot to death by a plainclothes officer who apparently did not announce that he was police.

 

SIT on your arse, DON`T talk out of it. the officer DID by law announce he was police!

[Pangloss]

You don't seem to understand' date=' in England if a policeman suspects you of theft he will not point a gun at you.

[/quote']

 

Again, in my example the policeman thought he was a terrorist, not a criminal, hence he points a gun at him (and shoots him when he doesn't comply). Exactly like what happened in the real case. As to whether your police carry guns while not in uniform, they certainly have to get from point A to point B with their weapons, so your claim is belied by real events. It's already happened.

 

I agree that the fact that they don't normally carry guns around while out of uniform reduces the possibility of a problem. But it does not eliminate it.

 

 

They already have guidelines. They only use deadly force as a last resort where it is judged to only way to save innocent lives. How hard is that for you to understand?

 

No such guidelines have been stated. All we know at the moment is that if they suspect someone of being a terrorist, they can kill them on the spot. (And again, I am predicting that such guidelines will be put into place.)

 

 

And stop being such a jerk. You have no cause to be so insulting towards me, and it doesn't help you make your point.

[Severian]

SIT on your arse, DON`T talk out of it. the officer DID by law announce he was police!

 

Do you have a source? Because this was not what was reported at the time. I have tried looking at a few news sites but can't find any reference to it.

 

I know it is the law, but that does not mean that they did - in fact, at the time, the media speculated that they might have been MI5 because they did not announce they were police.

[YT2095]

well nothing I can cite of the internet if that`s what you mean, then no.

but eye witness statements taken shortly after and broadcast on Radio4 with a %-Live link-up DID quite clearly hear it.

these people were interviewed shortly before the police took them away for de-briefing.

and of course as the name suggests, it was a LIVE hookup!

[Douglas]

Again' date=' in my example the policeman thought he was a [b']terrorist[/b], not a criminal, hence he points a gun at him (and shoots him when he doesn't comply). Exactly like what happened in the real case.

**********************************

No such guidelines have been stated. All we know at the moment is that if they suspect someone of being a terrorist, they can kill them on the spot. (And again, I am predicting that such guidelines will be put into place.)

Actually, I think the word "terrorist" should be appended with "terrorist who is thought to be of imminent danger to the public" I.E. not a person who is suspected of being a terrorist, but not carrying a bomb.

 

The BBC reports that Mr Menezes was pursued through a subway station by police before being cornered and shot repeatedly in the head. They also report that a new policy, codenamed Operation Kratos, which is based on the experiences of the Israeli security forces has been introduced and states that an officer can shoot a suspect in the head if it is thought he is a suicide bomber who poses an imminent danger to police or the public. http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=287408

[alibabba]

I have read most of the responses and can see both sides of the issue here.

 

Certainly we don't want to condone the police shooting anyone anytime that they "think" that he poses an immediate danger to the public. The burden should be--would a reasonable person think so? Much like the standard for lethal force being permissable in a case of self defense. (in most of the US)

 

On the other hand, it would be foolish not to recognize that we are currently involved in a somewhat tougher game here than it would be were we arresting burgulars, arsonists and even murderers. These guys are quite willing to die, right then and there, for their cause.

 

Under those circumstances, the rules of engagement simply must be altered to fit the occasion.

 

Judicial review is certainly called for, but it should be conducted with a thoughtful regard for what society is asking those officers to do.......

[Thomas Kirby]

Thomas: Just because you don't know the situation is not a reason to make shit up. Almost everything[/i'] you have stated is not substanciated in any of the reports, short of a man being shot. It is pure fantasy.

 

Someone else in this thread stated that the police didn't announce themselves to the man. The rest I got from the Yahoo article that I put up a link to. Plainclothes police subdued the man and then shot him to death at point blank range. They decided that he had no connection to the bombings after they had executed him in this manner. How does it occur to you to label all of this as my fantasy when I got it from a news article on Yahoo?

 

I can't see altering the rules of engagement. A suicide bomber is going to hold off detonating his bomb because he was tackled in the wrong place? The idea insults my intelligence. When the mission is compromised, he would go for killing as many infidels as he could where he could, and not hold back because he could only get ten of them. My take on it is, and I am repeating myself, if he didn't detonate a bomb while they were chasing him, he either couldn't detonate it or he didn't have one. There is no ding-dong safety issue there. There is no usable bomb if it didn't go off before the officer tackled him. Am I going to have to go to London and do their heavy thinking for them?

 

It would be slightly more effective to have snipers posted at every train station ready to shoot in the head any bombing suspect pointed out to him by a bobby on the ground. If they ever actually do it, a good citizen, not a coward like me, would make a game of finding said snipers and destroying them.

 

A fact is that the police do go around carrying weapons while out of uniform. Is there anyone here who is unclear on what the term "plainclothes" means?

[Lance]

Once they pinned him' date=' they could have used a tranquilizer or put some sleeping technique on him. In my personal opinion, it was wrong for the cops to kill him. Either way you look at it, you could have put the dude to sleep instead of killing them.

 

Cops are such freaking idiots, i hate cops. They usually have tazers or stun guns on them. They could have just used a tazer on the dude once they caught up. Those things are so strong they'll expand your muscles so you can't move and you end up in the fetal position.

[/quote']

 

This is pure ignorance. WHAT tranquilizer? Show me a tranquilizer that can be delivered several feet away and works instantly other than a bullet and gun. Neither tazers nor stun guns put the victim to sleep. They don't even keep you from moving, in fact, they are more likely to cause muscle spasms, increasing the risk even more of the bomb going off. Not to mention the affect of high voltage across a homemade detonator.

[Douglas]

This is pure ignorance. WHAT tranquilizer? Show me a tranquilizer that can be delivered several feet away and works instantly other than a bullet and gun. .

As the Israelis say....A shot to the head is instantanious immobilization.

[Douglas]

How does it occur to you to label all of this as my fantasy when I got it from a news article on Yahoo?

The power of the press,, makes you wonder why so many people think Dubya is dumb and so many Europeans dislike Americans, or the American gov't.

[Aardvark]

gain, in my example the policeman thought he was a terrorist, not a criminal, hence he points a gun at him (and shoots him when he doesn't comply). Exactly like what happened in the real case.

 

 

In your example the suspect apparently thought he was suspected of theft and so therefore did not comply with instructions. As i have repeatedly pointed out, police do not point guns at theft suspects so that misunderstanding would not arise.

 

As to whether your police carry guns while not in uniform, they certainly have to get from point A to point B with their weapons, so your claim is belied by real events. It's already happened.

 

Yet again, another false assumsption you really should stop defending. Off duty police do not ever carry guns in England. Ever. Only specialist highly trained armed response officers ever carry guns and only when on duty.

 

I agree that the fact that they don't normally carry guns around while out of uniform reduces the possibility of a problem. But it does not eliminate it.

 

The problem is not one of police having guns. The problem is dealing with a suicide bombing campaign. In this instance it is clear that the police acted correctly.

 

 

No such guidelines have been stated. All we know at the moment is that if they suspect someone of being a terrorist, they can kill them on the spot.

 

Wrong again. Firstly the police do operate under guidelines written by the ACPO. Secondly, they do not kill anyone 'on the spot' for suspiscion. Shooting is done only as a last resort where innocent lives are judged to be at risk.

 

(And again, I am predicting that such guidelines will be put into place.)

 

If you bothered to actually check the facts before making your unsubstantiated statements you would know that their are guidelines in place.

 

 

 

And stop being such a jerk. You have no cause to be so insulting towards me, and it doesn't help you make your point.

 

You have made an argument in which you have jumped to unsubstantiated and incorrect assumptions. You have made near hysterical statements bewailing behaviour and situations that don't exist. You have made incorrect statements characterising my opinions and thoughts. You have not bothered to acquiant yourself with the facts of the situation.

 

If you feel my pointing out of these gross and multiple deficencies on your part is somehow insulting then i suggest that you stop being so over sensitive.