CNN: Police: Man shot in subway a Brazilian not tied to bombings

[Beam Me Up]

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Police say the man they shot dead at a London Underground station was a Brazilian national "not connected" with this week's attempted bombings on the city's transit system.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/23/london.tube/index.html

[saigon68]

1. Glad he had a trial

This will end suspicious people running around.

Your Base are belong to US

[Erika]

2. Exactly

Anyone who doesn't stop when yelled at deserves execution upon the spot. Tried, convicted, and executed. Bush's hysteria passed along.

[Benbow]

5. Didn't stop, hurdled the security barriers, ran onto an underground train

the day after four bombs failed to go off because the explosives had gone stale but the bombers themselves are still at large.

Nothing to do with hysteria.

[LivingInTheBubble]

45. He was being chased by plain clothes men with guns.

would you stop?

[djg21]

53. no with just guns,

but with large assault weapons.

Then, by eyewitness accounts, he jumped a turnstile, ran down a platform to a boarding train, and was in such a rush to get on the train that he nearly fell on his face.

That would make him suspicious from my perspective, and if the police/anti-terrorist unit had reason to believe that he was trying to detonate a bomb, they would have had every right to use deadly force.

This was certainly was a tragic mistake. But perhaps we shouldn't be so fast to jump to conclusions.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

84. Interesting that his family states that he wasn't the type of person...

...to run from police for any reason. Somewhere this story is not passing the smell test.

[djg21]

104. Smell test?

John Wayne Gacy's neighbors thought that Mr. Gacy was a very nice man who loved kids, and even dressed up as a clown to entertain at birthday parties. Can you guesswhat his basement smelled like?

What do you think that the family would say even if he had proven to be a suicide bomber?

I agree that there should be a very thorough investigation, but I don't see how it's responsible to immnediately assume the worst about the officers, or to label this as a "summary execution" as some of the more irresponsible denizens of this community have elected to do. That is just moronic if you ask me.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

127. The police killed an innocent man in cold blood. Do you support that?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

132. To attempt to compare the Brazilian to John Wayne Gacy is....

...beneath moronic, IMHO. In fact, IMHO, your post is beneath contempt.

[djg21]

133. Okee Dokee!

:+

I thought it was pretty fitting given your statement about a "smell test."

[jwcomer]

92. But that's exactly what got him killed!

How is it that we shouldn't rush to conclusions (which isn't what we are doing, btw), but it is perfectly ok for officers of the law to rush to conclusions and drop 5 bullets in an innocent mans head (which you would be very hard pressed to argue they did not do)?

[djg21]

101. Because it is their job!

How is it that we shouldn't rush to conclusions (which isn't what we are doing, btw), but it is perfectly ok for officers of the law to rush to conclusions.

Because it is their job to to do so, and they have been trained to make those kinds of snap judgments. If the deceased was armed with a bomb, it's not as if there would have been a lot of time to react. You are taling about fractions of seconds! Place yourself in he officers shoes. Rest assured, no officer ever wants to shoot an unarmed, innocent civilian!

[jwcomer]

112. that's not good enough

Friend,

Many crimes can, have and will be justified on precisely that basis. But I do not believe that, "because it is my job", is good enough. Rest assured I'm not judging the officer involved. I'm judging the system that considers the risk of a bomb to outweigh the life of an innocent man. That is a travesty of justice and I do not believe that it should be our way of life. Ethics ought to precede security. And I do not believe that it is ethical for me as a member of society to ask that man to give his life in exchange for reducing the possibility that he might have had a bomb.

regards,
Walton

[djg21]

113. Hindsight is 20/20.

Do you really think that the man would have been shot had the officers known that he was innocent?

No one disputes that it would be wrong to knowingly and willfully kill an innocent man. If the officers did this, then they are criminals and should be treated as such.

Moreover,no one can dispute that, in retrospect, this was a horrible tragedy. But that just isn't the relevant inquiry.

The question here is one of subjective intent of the officers. At the time they made use of deadly force, did they have reason to believe that the man posed a threat to the safety of the officers or others. If they reasonably believed that the man posed a danger, i.e., if he was equipped with a bomb, than the officers should be allowed some deference. Indeed, had the officers not acted decisively, and had the man been in fact been armed with an explosive device, we'd still be discussing the body count and the inability of law enforcement to protect us from terrorists.

I think that too many on this board are conflating these issues.

[jwcomer]

124. You owe me an apololgy.

Friend,

It is unkind of you to suggest I believe that the officers would have knowingly killed an innocent man. Nowhere have I implied any such thing. I understand that you are stressed and replying to a great many threads simultaneously. Nevertheless I do not think I ask too much that you reply to my posts as I have written them.

If I may repeat myself, the question I am concerned with is not this man’s personal tragedy. If a man is run over by a car, that is also a tragedy, no different than this. What I’m concerned with is the travesty that this policy of shoot-to-kill represents. It is clear that the officers were following this preordained policy. It is this policy that which we should all be discussing. I think you are confusing the judgment of that policy with the judgment of the officers. If you make the mistake again, and continue to respond about the officers’ judgment, then you are being willfully argumentative and are not interested in a legitimate debate.

Btw, you might want to look up the definition of ‘conflate,’ I believe it means something different from what you intended.

[djg21]

125. I was responding to your earlier posts.

You were the one castigating the officers for shooting "an innocent man." If I misinterpreted your posts, I apologize.

BTW, the rationale for the policy -- that is the "shoot to the head" policy -- is intended to prevent the detonation of an explosive device that could be caused by discharging a handgin into the torso of the terrorist. Again, I don't have a problem with the policy if the officers had good reason to suspect that the man was a terrorist. The fact that he was on the ground "being restrain" is hardly indicative of anything. There is nothin in any of the press accounts to determine to what extent the mad was resisting, or whether he appeared to be continuing what could be perceived as an effort to detonate an explosive device.

As I said, no one can realistically condone the taking of an innocent life, but I am not prepared to immediately conclude that the officers' conduct was not justified.

and BTW:
conflare>verb: to combine into one. Yes, I meant to use that word, and its use was in fact proper.

[jwcomer]

126. Be more specific.

The rational for the policy is to remove the possibility of the subject setting off the bomb. The head is chosen so that the subject dies instantly; not because the chest shot might set off the bomb. That the chest shot might set off the bomb is merely coincidental; and as such serves only as a red herring for justifying the head shot. For what its worth, the red herring isn't even that good, as the sort of explosives one would strap onto one's chest do not go off when shot.

You seem to be holding out for the possibility of new information which will make for a stronger case for the shoot-to-kill order. However, in my limited experience, PR always starts with the best possible case. New facts almost always damage that case. If there really were additional mitigating facts, it would be incompetence on the part of the PR team to have not revealed that information (barring national security concerns - note, however, that they were more then willing to reveal the apartment building they had been casing.) So far that has been how this is playing out as well.

Given the case that has been presented by the police, I cannot find the shoot-to-kill to have been just. I do not consider it to have been life preserving act; rather I see it as an act of cowardice. Not cowardice of the officers, but cowardice of society and those who authorized a shoot-to-kill under those circumstances. And I believe that society was debased by it.

You seem to want to focus on the motivations of the officers at the final moment when they shot this man. Regardless of the merits of their final reactions, it will not necessarily make the action a right one. It is a logical fallacy to justify actions based on intent. Intentions are relevant in determining punishments, not in determining rightness of action. Right intentions often lead to wrong actions. It is important to separate the two concepts. One might go so far as to say that you are conflating the two, but I prefer to say that you are merely confusing them.

Regarding, 'conflating': I hope you'll forgive me if I'm unable to parse out from your comments which were the separate issues that were being combined. Perhaps you could clarify this for me.

regards,
Walton

[LisaL]

66. How would he know the people chasing him were policemen?

They were not in uniforms. The poor guy was trying to save himself from people chasing him. And police killed him for that.

[Benbow]

3. He had a choice, my sarcastic friend

[truthisfreedom]

4. next time you're scared out of your mind being chased by people who aren't

dressed in cop uniforms,

i hope you have the wherewithall to keep this in mind.

[Benbow]

6. They were carrying automatic weapons, and in the UK most people don't have

guns. Unlike the US.

[still_one]

8. they had him incapacitated and still shot him in the head

No justification, pure incompentence, plus probably a hint of racism

He wasn't even Muslim

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

15. This is from AP

LONDON Jul 22, 2005 — Plainclothes police chased a man in a thick coat through a subway station, wrestled him to the floor and shot him to death in front of stunned commuters Friday.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO FATALLY KILL HIM!!!

I assume you are also for the patriot act

Those who want security over freedom will have neither

[LostinVA]

23. I saw the photo - he didn't even have a thick jacket on

It was like a fleece/hoodie thing. Even here in VA some people dress like that in summer. I think they're crazy, but they do. I've been to London in July, and the heat and humidity is much less than wear I live.

There is some CYAing going on for Scotland Yard, I think.

[still_one]

27. true, but I think the British will NOT cover this up

like we did with the 9/11 investigation

We weren't looking for the truth, and how to prevent it, I think the British will

[Media_Lies_Daily]

85. The Brits have a very long history of covering up incidents....

...they're quite professional in that regard.

[still_one]

95. that surprises me, because the BBC appears to be pretty critical

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Photo? I don't think any photo has been released at all

Don't confuse this with the 4 photos of suspects from Thursday. But if you have seen a photo of the Brazilian, I'd be interested to see it too.

[LostinVA]

63. Okay, I confused the photo...

Mea culpa! I had a wee bit too much Guinness last night...

[Beam Me Up]

72. There is a photo in the CNN article liked from the OP.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. do you have a link for the photo?

This issue: the 'thick overcoat' has come up over and over again, and the fascists among us are using it as part of their justification for the summary execution of this poor man. So far just about every assertion that the police initially made about this incident has been bullshit: not muslim, not connected in any way with any terrorist group or any people under surveillence, etc. etc. The last shred of support for their actions they have left is that he wore a thick overcoat and ran when chased by men with guns.

The policy that is being justified here is 'if the person is suspected of being a suicide bomber it is justified to blow that persons brains out even when the suspect is in the control of the police'.

So I'm just wondering what choices this guy had. If he stopped and submitted to their authority they were justified in killing him. If he runs they are justified in killing him. It seems that, since a suicide bomber can detonate at any moment, the police are now justified (by our DU fascists) in killing anybody at any time in any situation, as otherwise 'in less than a second' boom the bomb goes off.

[LostinVA]

62. It was on cnn.com last night

He was trotting in the Underground, and was wearing whitish pants and a LIGHT jacket, that looked like it had "New York" on the front. I'll see if it's still on cnn.com.

[LostinVA]

64. Self-delete

[Warren Stupidity]

65. Recheck that picture.

I found that one too, but it is labelled as 'a person of interest' that the police are looking for in connection with the 7/14 bomb attempts. The photo plays alongside the almost totally content free articles on the subway execution, so the confusion is easy.

They certainly had no trouble coming up with many photos of the bombers (both the 7/7 group and the 7/14 group) why am I not surprised that not a single picture of the allegedly very suspicious brazillian is forthcoming?

[jmc777]

31. This from MercuryNews.....

From (Username: [e-mail], password: kokkr0)

"The man who emerged Friday morning was wearing a padded, blue fleece jacket and dark baseball cap that covered his features and made him appear suspicious as well as harder to identify, police officials said. Officers from a specialist undercover firearms unit trailed after him as he took a bus to the Stockwell station. As he headed into the station, the officers bolted after him, and the man ran toward the platform, witnesses said. He stumbled into a subway car and three undercover operatives with handguns piled on top of him."


He was being chased by the 3 plain-clothed undercover officers, not bobbies in uniform. If 3 guys in normal clothing were chasing after me I'd run too.

[TankLV]

76. I suggest you take your own advise.

He was already SUBDUED - in other words, NOT FREE TO MOVE IN ANY WAY - face down, so yeah - just go in and pump him 5 TIMES in the head - no questions asked!

Yeah - an "apology" is more than sufficient from these trigger happy "police" (sarcasm off).

Sorry - he was a foreign national to boot - maybe he only spoke PORTUGUESE not English.

Strange men with no identifying devices, chasing him thru the street.

Yeah - any common person would just stop and see. Besides, what makes you think even if he stopped they wouldn't have shot him 5 TIMES! Just like they did WHEN HE TRIPPED AND FELL ON HIS FACE and they had him successfully PINNED.

[djg21]

100. How do you know that he was "subdued."

That he was on the ground, with officers trying to restrain him, hardly confirms that he wasn't resisting, or that there wasn't a legimate concern held by the officers that he was attempting to detonate an explosive.

[TankLV]

135. You are really grasping for straws, aren't you?!

[saigon68]

114. Adios

[TankLV]

74. Which would make me assume even more of the worse that the men

chasing me with semi-automatic weapons were criminals.

Most people would assume the "police" were still the tradidional "bobbies" WITH NO WEAPONS, not looking like CRIMINALS themsleves with SEMI AUTOMATIC weapons!

Yeah - stop for strangers armed with weapons who immediately start chasing you. Riiiiiigt!

[still_one]

7. really

he had undercover police come after him with guns, they subdued him, and then shot five bullets in his head

If people justifiy this, then they justify the reason bush went into Iraq, because they had something to do with 9/11, (NOT!!!)

[Benbow]

14. No, before that. When told to stop, he could have stopped.

It is not difficult - you just stop putting one leg in front of the other.

[still_one]

17. You watch, unlike the U.S. the Brits will NOT white wash this

before this is over, the investigation will show that the officers did NOT act in a proper way

A similar rationalization occurred in the U.S. attacking Iraq

The WMDs were not there
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
The attackers were from Saudii Arabia, and the attack was planed by al queada in Afganistan. So we diverted our resources from Afganistan, and went to Iraq. Now we have a war of generations, that will destroy our civil liberties

[MSgt213]

24. I course don't know what an investigation to show, but I will bet that

the cops involved in this are not proud of their actions here. I don't know what was going through this guy's head to make him make such a stupid and deadly move as not halting when the cops told him to stop just as I don't know the end result would have been different if he had stopped. I certainly don't know what was going through trained police officers heads that made them react to this the way they did.

While this poor guy paid with his life, I some how think that the cops being cleared of charges is not going to ease their minds on a personal level that while trying to save innocent lives they inadvertently took an innocent one.

If we are going to look for someone too truly blame though isn't it the bombers and their like. I mean after all if the Tubes had not been bombed the chances of this happening would have been next to none. I for one can not help but think that the zealots and their supports are not sitting back smiling. Thinking they are so scared their passing laws to restrict their own citizens rights and killing them for us to boot.

[still_one]

25. I agree

A similar thing happened and is happening here after 9/11

Many do NOT see the danger of the Patriot act. They say it will only affect someone who is "guilty". The problem is, people and computers make mistakes, and what may start out as a reasonable course may change to go after political opponents, or anyone who disagrees with an administrations policy

When we hold people in jail, without telling them WHAT they are being charged with, or not allowing them access to an attorney, is this what we really want

We have to fight terrorism in a smart way, otherwise the terrorists win.

Unfortunately, the opportunity to unite the world after 9/11 was destroyed by the neocons, and their insistence to go into Iraq

Not only have we divided the world against us, but we have helped recruit more terrorists by "going it alone"

[MSgt213]

30. You also need leaders who are going to think rationally. One of the

stupidest things said is "They hate us for our freedom" and then you turn right around and restrict freedom. That makes a lot fucking sense. Freedom and security are always going to be at odds because they are opposites. If Americans, Brits or anyone else expect total security from their government then they should be prepared to hold their governments responsible for their foreign polices that seed the hate and discontent that cause it to be now necessary in the first place.

A lot of people don't want to or seem incapable of understanding that our actions in the past of supporting this bad guy or group of bad guys and then turning on them when it suits us has an effect of giving others a bad taste in their mouth. It has nothing to do with freedom except if you want to think of it as our freedom do fuck around in other countries constantly to our detriment.

[still_one]

32. yup

when bushy first took office, he could have taken over where clinton left off in the negotiations between the Israel and the Palestinians. Instead he not only ignored it, but actually turned his head as more settlements were being created. Then 9/11 came, and everything was forgotten

People also tend to forget that for years we were arming both Iraq and Iran so they could kill each other. What kind of moral standard is that?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

87. Baloney. The Brits have a long history of covering up things....

...they don't want their people to know.

[still_one]

97. then why do we know what we know now?

because they still have a free press perhaps

[Media_Lies_Daily]

128. Because there were too many eyewitnesses to eliminate all at once....

...the BBC claims it operates independently of the British government, but I don't believe that any more than I believe that the U. S. has a "free press".

[Tom Bombadil]

134. Of course it does..

Ever heard of the Hutton report, David Kelly, Andrew Gilligan. One man died, the Director-General of the BBC had to resign. All because the BBC brought the government to task over its dodgy intelligence on Iraqi WMD's. I'd say all this points towards the Beeb being pretty damn independent, not the government media outlet you're implying.

[Henny Penny]

117. In British english, the word for whitewash is Hutton!

[confludemocrat]

43. If he was as suspicious as they say, then they would have killed him anywa

y, according to their reasoning.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. but benbow

he was suspected of being a suicide bomber and he was in a public space where the bomb could have killed many so the police, according to you, would have had no choice but to execute him right then and there.

[djg21]

102. here you go with the "execute" crap all over again.

Perhaps if your family was at risk of being blown into hamburger meet,you have a different perception of the officer's response.

It was a tragic turn of events, but to characterize it as an execution is irresponsible. But we've been through this before it seems.

[TankLV]

77. He was BRAZILIAN - they speak PORTUGUESE, not english.

Yeah - dumb fuck should have understood English like we all do. (sarcasm off)

[jmc777]

78. His cousin said that he spoke good English....

....and he had lived in London for the past 3 years.

[sattahipdeep]

79. The police had a choice too.

Why did they follow him to the train station instead
of shooting him after he left the flat?

Under secret guidelines codenamed Operation Kratos,
armed officers were instructed that they should shoot to
kill suspected suicide bombers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1697662_3,00.html

British police to shoot suicide bomb suspects in head: chief
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1649635&mesg_id=1649635

[wakeme2008]

9. pic from BBC

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swamp Rat]

16. Welcome to DU!

Good luck! :hi:

[still_one]

18. you have a lot of hostility, and absolutely no sympathy do you

even the British have expressed sadness

[theHandpuppet]

34. I don't think "hostility" is the word...

...which describes what this poster has expressed in several threads on this subject. Questioning the man's IQ, assuming he must be a cocaine dealer... yeah, I don't think "hostility" quite fits.

[still_one]

35. I hear ya They are going through what many in the U.S. did

after 9/11, extreme paranoia

[theHandpuppet]

37. "Paranoia" doesn't quite fit, either

I think something else has been exposed here; paranoia just removed the mask.

[still_one]

71. a touch of prejudice perhaps

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Fairly high, I'd think

He's an electrician, working in a country and speaking a language that isn't his native one.

While I tend to be on the same side as you for "don't call this execution, the police thought they were chasing a dangerous person", I think your remarks about the victim are insulting, and getting tiresome. The "cocaine dealer" remark was, in fact, bigotted.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rjbcar27]

11. A tragedy, but I'll defend our cops on this one.

Think about the alternative, if he had been a bomber and the cops had a chance to take him out and they didn't, what would we have been saying if the man had blown dozens of people up? We'd have castigated the police for not taking the chance.

[Benbow]

13. Persackly

[still_one]

19. they did such a good job in Norhern Ireland

another religious war

[Media_Lies_Daily]

88. In fact, the NeoCons learned quite a bit from the Brits...

...like how to detain for long periods of time with no charges filed.

[Donkeyboy75]

20. Yep, I'm with you there.

Acting as he did just days after the bombings wasn't too smart. People would absolutely be second-guessing this if the cops hadn't shot him and he DID have explosives.

[still_one]

22. Shoot him is one thing

five times in the head?

Israel seems to have a better procedure in dealing with such matters

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/603687.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Not really comparable

catching a suspect in a field is a bit different from doing it in the middle of a city. At least I presume you're referring to the first incident in that article, rather than the second one where a bystander was killed.

[still_one]

94. yup, I was referring to the first incident

[LivingInTheBubble]

48. acting how?

running from people with guns? He was catching the tube to work as he did probably every day!

[Donkeyboy75]

99. Did he jump the turnstiles on the way to work everyday?

We don't know all the facts here, but based on the information available, I don't see how the police did anything wrong.

[Henny Penny]

115. I've seen people jump the turnstiles... particularly when they are

late for work and the train is just pulling up...

If you are going to give the police such draconian powers you need to be sure that they will use them appropriately.

And after their first use, I would say there is considerable doubt about this.

[Donkeyboy75]

121. Of course you're right.

I'm just saying I understand how the police made the mistake. I'm more annoyed at all the second-guessing. Many people (I'm not saying you or anyone else in particular) that have their knoves out for the police would be the same ones that would criticize them if he HAD been a bomber and they HADN'T stopped him in his tracks before he detonated the bomb.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

129. Many of us that are being critical of the way this incident was handled...

...are asking themselves, and others, why wasn't the young man searched while pinned to the ground? If the police had bothered to take that rudimentary step the Brazilian would be alive today and none of us would be talking about this issue.

Additionally, why weren't the men dressed in uniform instead of the way they were? Who wouldn't run when chased by scruffy looking strangers waving firearms, especially since the eyewitnesses state that the police never identified themselves as such?

By the way...ever hear of a "dead man's switch"? A suicide bomber with his hand on such a switch would have released it at the moment of his death, thus killing the police and everyone aboard the vehicle.

This is a faulty tactic being used by the British police, from top to bottom.

[demobrit]

21. Well Said

[cheeseit]

26. Well said, thank you!

[still_one]

29. so do you feel safer since the U.S. decided to go into Iraq?

[cheeseit]

38. no

[still_one]

93. you and I are definitely on the same page there

I have confidence that the British will investigate this throughly, and not cover this up. Hopefully everyone will learn from this experience

[jmc777]

28. If he was a suspected "suicide bomber".....

.....why did they let him get a bus to the tube station?

[Matilda]

36. It is puzzling - why didn't they stop the bus?

Did they have the right person when he got off the bus at Stockwell,
or was it someone else?

[LisaL]

52. Because the only thing they had on this guy is that

he left an apartment complex possibly associated with the bombings and was wearing a jacket. That was enough to kill him by shooting him 5 times in a head. I wonder why they don't stop real suicide bombers for a change, instead of killing innocent people?

[confludemocrat]

50. No way this wasn't an attrocity. Anything unusual, you're dead

Wearing a thick coat on a coolish day (certainly a coolish day for a Brazilian) makes one suspicious. Look at the CCD pictures of people on that day, and you woulda worn something like that, too.

Dark-skinned makes you marked for death, as this was repeatedly mentioned along with the coat as seemingly a point of suspiciion or in the context of a level of justification

They trailed him until the subway station (after letting him ride a bus(!)) and only then did plainclothes yell at him to stop, once they did reach him they killed him, He shoulda stopped people here have said, who's to say they wouldn't have killed him at any time?

The police authorities lied to the public about this.

The Israeli training has repeatedly mentioned as some kind of ordained way for handling this, but the Israelis were so bad at this kind of thing that they had to build a Berlin or East German wall!

So the police can kill you wherever and whenever they want. Coming soon to an incident near you: Police as judge and executioner. And anyone endorsing this royal or Royal fuckup should be ashamed of themselves.

[rooboy]

39. I wonder if you'd feel the same way if it was your dad. n/t

[LivingInTheBubble]

47. What?

He left a flat *GOT ON A BUS* then entered the tube station, they eventually killed him in a train. This was no split second descision if they really thought he was a bomber they wouldnt have let him get on a bus!

The other problem with your logic is its dependence on "IF". E.g I could kill you for no reason and then say "hey what IF he was a suicide bomber" - it runs against all accepted forms of justice.

[LisaL]

49. Exactly. What if he was a suicide bomber?

What if anybody was a suicide bomber? If that's acceptable reason to kill a person, then police can kill anyone and then say "What if he was a suicide bomber?".

[LisaL]

51. He wasn't a bomber. Based on your logic, the police can

shot anyone they please, just because he or she might be a suicide bomber.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. so then

the police should just blow the brains out of anybody they suspect of being a suicide bomber, right?

[djg21]

103. Of course not . . .

they should ask him if he has enough explosive, perhaps buy him dinner, and then escort him to the train. :sarcasm:

What a completely idiotic statement.

[Henny Penny]

116. If by "our cops" you mean the guys doing the killing, then I would

agree. He could have been a bomber and they had been given their instructions as to what to do in this instance.

But if you mean the whole operation then I disagree. Something seems to have gone very wrong in the lead up to the shooting.

[jmc777]

54. Here's a photo of the undercover officers.....

[LisaL]

55. If they are freaking carrying these weapons in the open, why

don't they wear uniforms so people don't think they are criminals instead of policemen?

[jmc777]

56. The guys in the photos were probably back-up....

....only one of the guys chasing the "suspect" had a gun, and it was an automatic pistol. But that photo gives people an idea of what they were dressed like. If 3 guys like that were chasing me I'd probably have run too.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. I rather doubt that weapon is openly carried

by an undercover officer. That would defeat the purpose of the undercover part of his assignment. More likely this guy fetched his weapon from the trunk of a car when the shit went down.

[LisaL]

68. When you have people in plain clothes running after you

with permission to shoot you in a head if they think you are suspicious, it's not surprising something like this had happened.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. oh I agree completely

I am outraged by this incident, and I am outraged by the response of many here on DU who have found all sorts of reasons to justify this act of outright fascism. We've slid right down the slope from denying and rationalizing incipent fascism to denying and rationalizing overt fascism. Turns out that was easy. I now understand what happened in Germany, Italy, and Spain 70 years ago.

[fujiyama]

96. It disgusts me too

I'm not sure if those posters that are defending the actions are British or American, but if they are British, they obviously no longer have a right to criticize US policy any longer.

And if they are American, they have shown that they have bought into the fear and paranoia as well...and maybe are showing their own prejudices.

If a bunch of men in plainclothes are chasing you with guns you run - or atleast I would. Especially considering there were several incidents of brown people being beaten by mobs of white youth (skinheads and other racists).

[still_one]

98. actually if they are British they are going throught the same

transition may in the U.S. did.

Look how long it took before people here finally realize that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11

[Pachamama]

70. Holy Sh*t! If guys like this w/ guns like that were running after me, I'd

have been running away too!

How the hell did this guy know they are police? With all the craziness of what has been going on (and don't forget the past IRA issues and terrorism) how was this guy necessarily to know that they were police? :shrug:

This is unbelievable! Atleast in the US people with FBI etc. have big vests on with the letters F-B-I!

Brits should be up in arms about this! This could happen to anyone now and just be justified because they happened to walk out of a building where there was a suspect and because they were "thought to have been a suicide bomber". The fact that they executed him like that is plain wrong!

:grr:

[NNN0LHI]

57. Wrong thread

[LisaL]

58. I am sorry, I fail to see what do babies in an incubators have

to do with London police shooting an innocent man in the head?

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

73. INNOCENT...use the word, "innocent". This "not connected" moniker is bull

Why can't the corporate fascist media actually use the real descriptor for this poor soul...HE WAS FUCKING INNOCENT OF ANY WRONG-DOING.

JB

[Warren Stupidity]

75. no he wasn't innocent

Get with the program. He ran away from men with guns chasing him. That appears to justify summary execution to quite a few people right here on DU. Better he should have stood still so they could have blown his brains out without the chase. After all, he could have been a suicide bomber so the police can't take any chances.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

82. freeper moles I understand

and perhaps all who are rationalizing this bullshit are just general dumbasses. I hope you are right. I fear you are not.

[djg21]

105. To quote Mr. Pitt:

Dine on my feces.

You obviously have no clue.

[Warren Stupidity]

106. No clue about what exactly?

About the merits of summary execution of innocents? Be specific.

[djg21]

107. It's self evident from your posts.

[Warren Stupidity]

108. ok got it

you've told me to eat shit and that I am clueless and you refuse to explain yourself at all. Does that about sum it up?

Meanwhile, please do explain exactly why it is acceptable for the police to summarily execute innocents.

[djg21]

109. you refuse to explain yourself at all

I've already explained it to you. It's a waste of time.

Need I provide you with links so I don't have to repeat myself yet again?

On second thought, you know where they are.

[Warren Stupidity]

110. so other than to attack me personally

did you have any reason to interject your hostile crap into this thread?

You certainly do not want to discuss the issue at hand.

[djg21]

111. We've been through this before.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1951990

Remember your assinine post that began that dialogue:

I am officially amazed, appalled, and nearly despondent by the number of people here who have expressed support for the execution of an innocent person in London

I'll let you refresh your own recollection as to that thread.

And BTW, my problem isn't with your opinion -- reasonable minds can differ. But as I said in my post last evening, "to condemn others on DU merely because they are not prepared to rush to judgment and because they do not agree with your premature conclusions and musings, is sophomoric and undemocratic."

[Warren Stupidity]

119. rush to judgment

It is ironic that you are calling me asinine, sophomoric and undemocratic because I have condemned others on DU because they are not prepared to 'rush to judgment' in the execution of Mr. Menezes, as it is simply not disputed that the police 'rushed to judgment' over Mr. Menezes with brutal and fatal results.

I have not condemned DU'ers who are withholding their opinion on this matter, I am condemning DU'ers that are supporting the summary execution of Mr. Menezes. However, for the sake of honest rational discussion, lets consider the rush to judgment aspect.

I'm rather curious what set of facts you are awaiting that will allow you to make an un-rushed judgment.

Here is what is not under dispute.
1) Mr. Menezes was not connected in any way to any terrorists, or terrorist organizations: he was an innocent person.

2) Mr. Menezes was deliberately executed by a specially trained team of undercover police officers while he was under their control, in fact while he was pinned down on the floor.

I have no problem reaching a rational and reasonable judgment of this incident based on the facts that are not in dispute. This was an outrage. A civilized democratic society does not allow its law enforcement officers to go around deliberately executing suspects. The actions of the police in London were the actions of a police state and I unequivocally condemn them.

I find it puzzling that you and some few others on DU do not condemn what was done. Further, I find it beyond puzzling, in fact I find it outrageous, that this attitude goes beyond 'not condemn' to 'support' for the summary execution of suspects by the police. I actually do not know where you stand on this, if you have crossed the line from 'don't know' to 'support'.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

131. Yes, indeed....we all remember your posts on this subject....

...and we remember exactly what you posted.

To blindly accept that the police were "just doing their job", and to basically blame a person for running from several scruffy individuals waving firearams and failing to identify themselves, is appalling, IMHO.

Yes. we're all welcome to our opinions, but not all opinions are going to be perceived equally by the vast majority of DU posters.

[mainer]

80. At least the UK cops ADMIT the mistake. That takes guts.

If it had happened here, there'd be stonewalling and statements that "we have not ruled out terrorism links" and they would stay mum until the press lost interest.

I have to hand it to the Brits. They came out right away.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

83. Admit mistake BUT DO NOT CHANGE POLICY that led to the tragedy.

Being "sorry" is one thing...actually doing something contructive to insure that you are not "sorry" in the future is another.

The Brit officals' apologies are hollow and without any consolation for the remainder of the London populace, any of whom may be the next "accident" victim.

JB

[LisaL]

91. Not only they don't want to change this policy, they

admit their mistake but still say more people could be shot. Oh joy!
I can't believe they are allowed to shoot people on suspicion alone. Before all of this is over, I bet a lot more people are going to be shot and killed. After all, half of London seem to be wearing coats.

[kaya33]

122. Enough is enough.

I agree whole heartedly. This is insane, what kind of society are we living in, where this is acceptable. When did it become ok to presume guilt, and shoot someone 5 times in the head. I once again am floored at how we rationalize it is ok to shoot and kill. I wonder how the Londoners feel about this. God forbid someone was mentallly ill or running again for whatever reason. They just might be shot by a trigger happy Brit!

[Warren Stupidity]

86. not really

first they outright lied about, it seems, all of the details. Then they were forced to admit that the victim was not remotely involved in anything to do with terror. They have however not apologized for their tactics or said that they were wrong. Quite the opposite. All they have said is that this victim was not involved. They had no choice in the matter, he was brazilian, how long were they going to keep that a secret?

In fact this morning someone from the police said that there could be more such shootings. They have unleashed these teams, their mission is to tackle and shoot to kill anyone they decide is a suspect suicide bomber. They have, as far as I can tell, not backed down from this program.

[still_one]

89. it is amazing what comes out when you still have a free press

NOT here, but in the UK

[LisaL]

90. Gee, the guy is dead. Everybody knows the police killed him.

What guts does it take? But I suppose if it had happened in US, we would still be told this guy was connected to terrorism.

[Pert_UK]

118. BREAKING ON BBC - victim's visa had expired.....

No link yet but may explain why he decided to run?

P.

[sattahipdeep]

120. "He was legal"Guardian writers trace the life and last minutes

His cousin Rubens de Menezes said he may first have come to
London to work without authorisation, but had legalised his
situation.

"He was legal," another cousin, Alex Pereira, 28, said
yesterday, outside the police cordon at Scotia Road. He
seethed visibly at what he described as the "stupidity" of the
police. "He had a big stamp in his passport."

More questions than answers cluster around Mr De Menezes'
final minutes when he got there: why was he wearing clothing
bulky enough to arouse the suspicion he was hiding explosives?
Why was he not challenged sooner? Why did he jump the
turnstile when ordered to halt?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/brazil/story/0,12462,1535566,00.html

[Media_Lies_Daily]

130. If you were being chased by scruffy looking strangers waving firearms....

...who, from eyewitnesses at the scene, failed to identify themselves as police, what would you do?

Why do a lot of young people wear bulky clothing all over the world? It's called contemporary fashion! Why would he NOT want to fit in with people he had known for three years?

[Oggy]

123. I Have Known a few people outstaying their visas

Mainly Aussies, the point being though, I know they would have run too. Maybe not any more though.

It seems to me being an electrician has now become a higher risk form of employment. All those wires they carry, well they must be bombers mustn't they?