Police shot Brazilian eight times

[mrfrapp]

The Brazilian man who was mistaken for a suicide bomber was shot eight times by police, his inquest has heard.

Electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, at Stockwell Tube station, south London, on Friday

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

This contradicts earlier reports by eye-witnesses that he was shot just five times.

[bushisanidiot]

1. Sounds like they wanted this guy dead. must've been a hit job.

i just don't see why they'd use such excessive force on a "hunch".

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[LisaL]

9. If he was hit in the shoulder, they could have set the bomb off.

Good job all the way.
:sarcasm:

[Pert_UK]

Why, because suicide bombers usually pack explosives...

around their shoulder areas?

Nice work.

[Bridget Burke]

28. Did the successful London bombers pack explosives around their shoulders?

I thought they carried them as luggage. At least, that's what the fuzzy pictures indicate.

[Pert_UK]

34. They did carry them in luggage....

this guy had no luggage but was wearing a big coat, leading to suspicions of a bomb hidden beneath.

Which was my point - suicide bombers don't carry explosives around their shoulders, hence the previous poster's point was odd.

[LisaL]

53. If police think the bomb is beneath the jacket, then shooting

the suspect anywhere on his body can set the bomb off.
That's why they are supposed to shot suspected terrorists on the head, not on the body.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

68. Ever hear of a "dead man's switch"? That's why you DON'T shoot....

...a suspected bomber ANYWHERE until you've gathered that bit of information. If the guy had been a bomber holding a dead man's switch, the bomber and the police holding him down would have been blown to bits.

I'm constantly amazed at the number of people willing to blindly support the police even when faced with a story of this type.

Amazing.

[alarcojon]

73. The bomber, the police, and lots of innocent bystanders as well

n/t

[Taxloss]

139. I'm amazed at the number of posters who are happy to accuse

their fellow progressives of "blindly supporting" the police because they have failed to join lock-step in a predictable chorus of condemnation from the conspiracy classes, and call this what it is - a tragic accident. The facts continue to emerge, an investigation is only now beginning, the police have launched a massive and unprecedented operation to attempt to make amends to the community, and you're still happy to score cheap points.

Amazing.

[endarkenment]

144. conspiracy?

While there have been some stated suspicions that perhaps there is even more foul depraved behavior than meets the eye, mostly the objections stated here are that this is police state fascist tactics that are unacceptable in a democracy.

When you have a shoot to kill policy in place for 'suicide bomber suspects', whatever that might mean, the collateral damage of dead innocents are not tragic accidents, they are predictable outcomes.

Are we so afraid of dying that we cannot stand up to the terrorists and say 'no you will not destroy our freedom, our democratic institutions, no matter how many fanatics you send to harm us?' Are we this easy to roll over into acceptance of the intolerable in the name of security?

[Taxloss]

154. "Police state fascist tactics". That is hardly reasoned criticism.

This seems to have been an awful, terrible mistake - one immediately conceded by the police. Not "police state fascist tactics" - an awful mistake. I'm as horrified about it as you, if not more so because it happened within two miles of my house.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

168. They deliberately held the man down and shot him SEVERAL times....

...that's not a "terrible mistake", IMHO, it's cold-blooded murder.

Do you support cold-blooded murder?

[Taxloss]

172. Cold-blooded murder in your opinion.

As you said, IMHO.

This seems to have been a groteque over-reaction; it is certainly not policy. This was a horrible confluence of the police reacting in the wrong way and a suspect acting in the wrong way.

[endarkenment]

217. you are quite misinformed

the 'pin them down and blow their brains out' part is the specific training that these teams have been given. The idea is that by blowing their brains out they cannot react and detonate their bomb. Not an accident: death by policy. Once the decision had been made that de Menezes qualified as a suicide bomb threat he was a dead man.

[Taxloss]

222. Wrong.

The way these officers reacted was not policy in the sense of the number of shots they fired. That was pure, adrenaline-fuelled over-reaction. Yes, it seems that specialist police teams are using a shoot-to-kill strategy when dealing with suspected suicide bombers. Yes, it seems that policy horribly backfired in this instance. Yes, the policy and the officers involved are now under the most extreme scrutiny and public investigation you can possibly imagine.

What more do you want? The police have apologised. An unprecedented campaign has been launched to reassure the community. This is not the reaction of some "fascist police state" - what the hell do you want from the police? This is an awful tragedy, a shocking over-reaction.

That said, De Menezes did the most stupid thing he could possibly have done in those circumstances. He could not have reacted in a more wrong manner. He checked every box in the mental checklist an armed pursuit officer has to make in, oooh, half a second.

[Romulus]

223. too too funny

(Edited to tone it down)

Yes, it seems that policy horribly backfired in this instance. Yes, the policy and the officers involved are now under the most extreme scrutiny and public investigation you can possibly imagine.

The London Police Chief, Sir Ian Blair, has come out and stated that the policy will continue, and more innocent people will be killed, and that it is "too bad, so sad." :eyes: And the policy has the full support of the not-likely-to-be-a-victim-of-it UK community.

What more do you want? The police have apologised. An unprecedented campaign has been launched to reassure the community.

A backhanded apology if I ever heard one. And the trigger man/men are probably being toasted at the local po-po pub for "doing the right thing" and guaranteeing their career security..

That said, De Menezes did the most stupid thing he could possibly have done in those circumstances. He could not have reacted in a more wrong manner. He checked every box in the mental checklist an armed pursuit officer has to make in, oooh, half a second.

Maybe if the UK police had cracked down on the racist football hooligans that are running rampant over there, instead of roughing up "muslim-looking" women with their babies, de Menezes wouldn't have thought he needed to run . . .

[Taxloss]

227. Wow, you've got an extraordinarily low opinion of the UK, haven't you?

How comfortable you must feel, able to criticise our police at such a long distance, and happy to tell us how to think and what to do. Typical. Why don't you bring democracy to our country? We're plainly lacking it somehow.

To restress:

- This is a disaster for the police. A horrible disaster. There is no suggestion that this officer is just going to swan away and that the incident will be forgotten. That is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I wonder if it would happen in the US?

- Just try and imagine this month replayed in an American city. Just try. You can't, obviously, and the fundamental fact that our police are rarely armed would be different. I'll repeat - there will be a completely full, fair and open investigation. Three in fact, one into the officer, one into the shooting, and one into the policy.

- We UK leftists hate Ian Blair, for the record.

As for your comments about the "not-likely-to-be-a-victim" community and "racist football hooligans", thanks for the charming racism. I'll not quote the statistics on hate crimes in the US after 9/11, because it migh embarrass you.

[Pert_UK]

232. And now, from the "Making shit up" dept....ROMULUS!

"the trigger man/men are probably being toasted at the local po-po pub for "doing the right thing" and guaranteeing their career security."

Yeah, probably....:sarcasm:

"Maybe if the UK police had cracked down on the racist football hooligans that are running rampant over there"...

Rampant? Do you have any idea how much racism in football has improved in the UK over the past 10 years? Especially when compared to Europe...No, of course you don't.........much easier to just make things up, eh?

[Romulus]

237. I just know what I read in you guys' newspapers

http://society.guardian.co.uk/emergencyplanning/story/0,14501,1529184,00.html

Far right and football gangs plot 'revenge'
Anti-Muslim websites monitored
Friday July 15, 2005

Plans by an alliance of rightwing extremists and football hooligans to exact "revenge" on Muslims after last week's bomb attacks are being monitored by police.
The Guardian has learned that extremists are keen to cause widespread fear and injury with attacks on mosques and high-profile "anti-Muslim" events in the capital.

Football hooligans communicating over the internet have spoken of the need to put aside partisan support for teams and unite against Muslims. Hooligans from West Ham, Millwall, Crystal Palace and Arsenal are among those seeking to establish common cause.

followed a few days later by:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1535190,00.html?gusrc=rss

'Bombers, racists, the law: they're all out to get Muslims'
Fear of faith-hate reprisals runs high
Sunday July 24, 2005

Fears of an anti-Muslim backlash have been realised in a 500-per-cent rise in faith-hate crimes in the past two weeks. More than 1,000 race and faith hate incidents have been reported to police across the country since the London bombings, though community leaders believe the actual number of incidents is at least four times higher.

Most of the reported crimes are 'low-level' attacks such as graffiti and verbal abuse. However, race monitoring groups across the UK have seen a significant increase in the number of reports of arson attacks on mosques and Muslim women being spat at in the street or not being allowed on buses because they were wearing headscarves.

Police are investigating several serious assaults and one murder related to the backlash. Although most incidents have taken place in and around London, police or community groups across the country have reported a rise in Islamophobic-motivated attacks.

[endarkenment]

226. so let me get this straight

"not by policy in the sense of the number of shots fired"

You mean that the policy was just 1 bullet to the base of the spine, not the entire clip? Is that your point? Are you serious? My guess, by the way, is that you would be wrong about that too. The training is most likely: unload the clip.

The police have stated that they are sorry that de Menezes was executed as he was totally innocent of any wrong doing. The government however continues to insist that the policy that resulted in the death of de Menezes is just fine. That is the 'what more do I want part' that I find lacking. That is the kind of apology that, if it were your kid, your instinct would be to dope slap the offspring for insolence.

There is no evidence that de Menezes did anything wrong at all. There are eyewitness reports that no warnings were given. There is a stunning lack of the pictures that would indicate that de Menezes volunteered for execution by wearing the wrong clothing. But do blame de Menezes for being executed, it is a compelling argument. de Menezes walked out the wrong door and was not quite white enough when he did so, after that he was a dead man.

[Taxloss]

228. Ah, the race angle again. "Not quite white enough". Very telling.

Telling because it indicates how your political preconceptions - perhaps even prejudices - are clouding your view.

Yes, De Menezes was innocent. You conveniently ignore the fact that in the midst of the largest security operation in the recent history of the capital, he decided to jump the ticket barriers in front of self-identified armed policemen.

So maybe he thought they were muggers. What muggers pursue a victim into a CCTV-saturated station in the middle of the day? Surrounded by station attendants? Surrounded by witnesses? Shouting "Armed police!"? Maybe he ran because of the expired visa. There's only one way to put that decision: stupid.

Edit: typo

[endarkenment]

233. he was mistaken for a pakistani

I'm not inventing a race angle, it exists.

"Yes, De Menezes was innocent. You conveniently ignore the fact that in the midst of the largest security operation in the recent history of the capital, he decided to jump the ticket barriers in front of self-identified armed policemen."

Not a fact. Eyewitness accounts dispute the police report that the undercover chase team identified themselves in any way, other than it seems they all put on blue baseball caps, a detail I suspect escaped de Menezes in the last moments of his life. Logic, and a little reflection, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the team would be very unlikely to have warned a person that they thought was a suicide bomber, a person who they thought had to be executed as he presented such immediate danger, that they were about to capture him. "Halt right there suicide bomber suspect". I don't think so.

de Menezes was a dead man the moment he walked out the wrong door being not quite white enough.

[Taxloss]

235. So the police intended to kill him from the moment he left his flat

for "not being white enough".

And this is your "factual" version of events? A racist hit squad? Jeez.

[endarkenment]

241. no

the police team mistook him for a pakistani because he wasn't white enough. He became a suspect suicide bomber for leaving the door of the apartment building where he lived and heading for the stockwell train station. Somewhere along the way the decision was made to take him out. Once that decision was made he was a dead man. Had he been a bit whiter he probably would be alive today.

[Taxloss]

243. If he hadn't jumped the barriers, he would be alive today.

His decision. Not that of the police.

You've presumably seen the pictures of him. Does he look Pakistani to you?

[Romulus]

244. that's what both the police and witnesses thought he was

The guy who watched him get his brains blown out decribed him as "asian."

The stakeout squad decided he was suspicious because of his complexion and his jean jacket, as reported in the "analysis" thread.

[Taxloss]

245. If he had stopped, he would be alive now.

It's not that he ran - it's that he jumped the barriers. That was really foolish.

[endarkenment]

247. if he had stopped earlier he would have been dead earlier.

The decision had already been made. No warnings were given. There was no attempt to capture de Menezes, which could have been anytime from the moment he stepped out that door, boarded a bus, exited the bus and entered the trains station. He was followed the entire way by a team of 30 agents.

keep blaming the victim.

[Taxloss]

248. So you say.

Any evidence for that?

[Romulus]

250. glad to see some support

Since my brother is a LEO, I am no "knee-jerk anti-police" whacko. This event stinks to high heaven.

If London was on near-lockdown that day, like we keep hearing due the "unprecedented situation," weren't there police already posted at the station entrance to prevent a bomber from entering?!?

Wouldn't those posted police officers have headed de Menezes off at the pass BEFORE he made it into the station, especially if 20+/30+ (the number keeps growing :eyes:) of their buddies were running down the street after him, yelling for him to stop??!!

[endarkenment]

246. keep blaming the victim

what would you do if you were being chased by armed men?

They were undercover. Witnesses dispute the claim that they indentified themselves in any way. Once they captured him they pinned him to the floor and blew his brains out. How can you defend this shit?

When de Menezes walked out that door being not quite white enough, he was a dead man.

[Taxloss]

249. How can you seriously say that?

He was just killed for "not being white enough"? And you're serious? Listen to yourself. This is the most diverse city on Earth. A less than white citizen is not exactly a novelty to the police.

[endarkenment]

257. At least attempt to be honest.

What I have said, repeatedly, is:
"When de Menezes walked out that door being not quite white enough, he was a dead man."

There are two qualities that, in my opinion, led to de Menezes's execution.

1) he walked out the wrong door;
2) he was mistaken for a pakistani.

The first was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the second is 'not being white enough'.

So do you think that he was not mistaken for a pakistani? Why on earth was he a suspect then? Was he the only person who left the front door of that apartment building and got on the bus that morning? Were the police just flat lying when they initially said he was pakistani? Really, what is your explanation for his selection?

Oh, by the way, he was not wearing inappropriate clothing, so don't bother with that bullshit. Nor did he act suspiciously, unless you count getting on the bus to go to work as suspect behavior. He was under surveillence from the moment he exited the building. Why?

Gee my guess is that he was not quite white enough so he got mistaken for a pakistani. But I admit I'm just guessing.

[Taxloss]

262. Execution?

Killing, certainly. Not execution. What do you think is going on in my city? Racially motivated hit squads? If they "always intended to kill him", why didn't they kill him the instant he left his flat? Why did they hang around until he had travelled to a Tube station?

"When de Menezes walked out that door being not quite white enough, he was a dead man."

And yet the police chose to shoot him in the middle of a Tube station, surrounded by witnesses and CCTV cameras, rather than at any other stage on his route?

Your "guess" is way off, in my opinion. My guess is that police following him panicked when he made a break for it. That's all we can do right now - guess. I'm finding it difficult to cope with the fact that the kneejerk reaction of so many DUers is to assume intense racism and overwhelming brutality on the part of our police. You are alienating part of your base.

[LisaL]

251. They apologized? So what, everything is peachy-rosy again?

What's their apology is going to do? Bring the dead guy back?
What use is their apology to the dead guy? Once you kill someone, apology just doesn't cut it.
:eyes:

[AuntieM1957]

149. Well, I'm amazed at the number of posters

who tell ME to wait for an investigation to determine whether or not I think it's horrific that a man was shot point blank when he was down. Shot to kill.

Even if he was a terrorist, that would horrify me.

I'm amazed at the DENIAL LEVEL of someone who wants to find fault with someone who treasures civil liberties over security.

The cheapness lies with those who devalue human life, on both sides of the "pond" and both sides of the political chasm.

[Taxloss]

156. The denial is your comfortable slump into anti-authority reactionism.

Taking a hard, cold look at the way this awful incident unfolded, rather than just flopping into a comfortable state of attacking authority, is the more fruitful moral perspective.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

169. Here's my "cold hard look" at this "awful incident"....

...several plain clothes police officers waving firearms, looking like scruffy thugs and not identifying themselves as police officers, held a man down within a few feet of other passengers and blew his brains out.

Do you support this kind of behavior by police?

If several armed, scruffy-looking individuals are chasing you with firearms and they're not telling you who they are, tell us how you would react.

Here's a piece of advice...skip the insulting remarks, they just make your position look far worse.

[Taxloss]

173. As if your position isn't insulting.

The day after an attempted wave of suicide bombings - the second in two weeks - you are pursued by men shouting "Armed police! Get down!" in the middle of the day in a crowded area. Rather than stopping - in the middle of the day in a crowded area, surrounded by authority figures - you choose to vault the security barriers into the Underground station and make a run for the train, sparking a firearms incident unprecendented in the history of the British police.

I'm sorry if our police look like "scruffy thugs" to you. Perhaps you would like them to wear pinstripes and bowlers.

I don't support the police killing of an innocent man. I also don't support the happy, knockabout point-scoring and cop-bashing this awful incident has sparked on DU. For heaven's sake man, what do you want? The instant that cop squeezed the trigger the investigation was launched, and it will be conducted out in the open. This is the wrong crusade.

[Romulus]

225. even funnier

sparking a firearms incident unprecendented in the history of the British police

Let's ask some Irish-people what they think of that one . . :eyes:

[Taxloss]

230. This was unprecedented.

I know your police run around shooting people all over the place, but we have very few instances of police shootings, and none this dramatic. I believe you're either thinking of the Death On The Rock, or have some absurd fabulist view of the Troubles.

[Romulus]

240. not exactly

Like I said before, your UK guys are jsut defending your honor, so I don't begrudge you that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711619.stm

Jean Charles de Menezes was not the first person to die by mistake at the hands of UK armed police.

His death, which came amid heightened tension caused by a string of bomb attacks on London by Islamic extremists, is the latest in a long line of controversies involving firearms officers.

*snip*

Shoot-to-kill was also said to have been used by the SAS in Gibraltar in 1988 on three IRA suspects.

An inquest into the incident held on Gibraltar returned a verdict of lawful killing but the European Court of Justice verdict ruled that British soldiers violated the fundamental right to life of the three IRA members.

[Taxloss]

242. Yes, Death On the Rock, as I said.

That was the SAS - an army division, not the police. Completely different. And it caused te most incredible scandal here.

[LisaL]

229. Did anyone hear these men screaming "armed police"?

Neither of the witnesses to the murder reported hearing that.

[Sterling]

238. Are you white?

I am, but I can empathize with what it must be like to be dark skinned in this kind of situation. You don't believe there is a racial element to this saga?

[Tom Bombadil]

180. You don't know for sure that the police didn't identify

themselves.

Many people on this thread and others seem to think that armed thugs have a habit of chasing people into London Underground stations in broad daylight. I have never heard of such an incident.

Even in plainclothes I would've assumed they were undercover police officers.

[LisaL]

252. It's a new policy. And police as much as said

there will be more innocent people killed as they hunt for terrorists.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

166. A "tragic accident" is being hit by a car.

[Taxloss]

167. No, that's just an accident.

A tragic accident is something preordained and avoidable, like the shooting of this man.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

170. No, that's cold-blooded murder. If they weren't police officers....

...they would be charged and tried.

[Taxloss]

174. They may well be.

In this country, these things get investigated.

[Sterling]

239. "preordained and avoidable"

Don't these two words kind of cancel each other out?

[barb162]

155. I'm constantly amazed

at the number of people willing to blindly expect the police to make perfect split second decisions. When you find the place on this planet where police are perfect in their decision-making, please let us in on it.

[LisaL]

182. This decision was as far from perfect as it gets.

[barb162]

183. Yep

[Frederik]

117. According to his friend

He was wearing a Levis denim jacket every day.

[endarkenment]

35. nice work?

What exactly do you mean by 'nice work'?

[Pert_UK]

101. Nice work....

it was intended sarcastically, on the grounds that the objection to my point was that a shot to the shoulder could set the bomb off, whereas in fact bombers don't tend to pad out their shoulders with explosives.

I.e., nice work - you've criticised me based solely on a comment that makes little sense.

[wakeme2008]

10. Well

Was he on the ground when he shot 7 bullets in his head... - YES

Were the "cops" undercover and not wearing police uniforms... - YES

Did the shit for brains cops allow this Bralizan "terrorist" near and underground station BEFORE they started going after him -- YES..

[Karenina]

64. Did they KNOW he wasn't the droid they sought?

YES.

"There are eight separate flats in the block. When Mr Menezes emerged from the communal front door just after 9.30am, the police must have realised from the photographs they carried that he was not one of the four bombers. Even so they decided that he was “a likely candidate” to follow because of his demeanour and colour, so one group set off on foot after him."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707480,00.html

[Bridget Burke]

11. If they thought he was a suicide bomber, why did they let him on a bus?

And why did they shoot him in the head after he was subdued?

By the way: The message you answered said nothing about "open season on everybody in uniform."

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

29. GREAT POINT. I guess buses are less important than the Tube.

Sadly, this event has rendered the police as MURDER suspects. Plain and simple.

This is why people should be given DUE PROCESS and ANY government needs to be damn sure of their targets before going "Rambo" on suspicious looking foreigners.

I hope this guys family SUES THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF THE UK GOVT.

JB

[Pert_UK]

33. See, now THAT'S a good question....

Why DID they let him on the bus? We'll wait and find out. There could easily be a sensible answer to that question - maybe he got onto the bus before they had a chance to stop him, maybe there were too many people around to risk it.

Maybe there was no good reason, and the whole story is a load of rubbish.

I will also wait to find out exactly how "subdued" he was - if he'd been wearing a bomb-belt then it wouldn't have taken much for him to trigger it. Was he still struggling with the officers when he was on the floor when they shot him? We don't know yet.

And no, I concede that the original post didn't say anything about it being open season on people in uniform - I've just seen far too many "anti police" posts on DU recently.

Call me unreasonable, but when I read the completely baseless conclusion that this was a "hit" I decided to lump that bit of nonsense in with the rest of the crap that has been chucked around recently.

[endarkenment]

43. why baseless?

It was a 'hit', these teams were let loose with authority to shoot to kill anyone they suspected of being a suicide bomber. The only mistake here was the nationality of the victim. Had he been a Pakistani that exited from the 'communal entrance' of the 'building under surveillance' the official story from Friday would have been left in place.

The only question in my mind is was this hit ordered explicitly to send a message, or was de Menezes just collateral damage in our little war of the civil vs the uncivil. (Quick somebody got a program? I can't quite make out which team is which.)

[Pert_UK]

82. Call me old fashioned.......

but given that we've seen absolutely nothing to suggest that "they wanted this guy dead" and that it was "a hit", I'm going to go with the evidence for the moment.

These teams are not "let loose with authority to shoot to kill anyone they suspected of being a suicide bomber."

These are groups of dedicated, volunteer armed police officers who put themselves in harms way and who have been empowered to use deadly force IF and ONLY IF they believe a suspect presents a real threat of imminent danger.

[ConfuZed]

92. Re "These teams are not "let loose with authority to shoot to kill anyone

they suspected of being a suicide bomber."

Actually you're wrong :)

Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4713199.stm
Quote: Police leaders say they will not abandon their "shoot-to-kill" policy and warn more innocent people could be killed in the fight against terrorism.

[ConfuZed]

94. Care to comment Pert_UK ?

[Pert_UK]

96. Jesus, give me 2 minutes - I'm not just fighting you in this thread!

I've got a whole queue of people saying things that I disagree with, so keep your pants on!

[Pert_UK]

95. I fail to see how that article (which I'd already read) makes me wrong...

"Met Police Chief Sir Ian Blair said "shoot-to-kill in order to protect" would continue, despite the "tragedy"."

i.e. they will only shoot if it is necessary in order to protect.

Same as usual then.

And as for the warning that more innocent people might be killed.......Well to be perfectly frank, I think he should be applauded for his honesty but he phrased it very badly.

IMHO what he means is - "If you behave suspiciously, look like you might be concealing a bomb, refuse to surrender when asked by a police officer and run into a crowded train to escape, then I'm afraid you might well get shot."

Sadly, there is no way to differentiate between somebody acting like a suicide bomber and somebody who IS a suicide bomber. In the same way, if you wave a replica gun at a policeman then he's going to shoot you - was his action unjustified once they find out it was only a fake?

[Auntie Bush]

177. I'm not taking sides but...one little point I'd like to make...

You said, "refuse to surrender when asked by a police officer and run into a crowded train to escape, then I'm afraid you might well get shot."

Since the police weren't wearing uniforms...how does one know if they are police or thugs/robbers? :shrug: If the next time a woman gets stopped (woman are suicide bombers too) by a couple men...how does she know if they are police or rapist? I'm just asking since I've been wonder about this today.

[barb162]

193. You are a voice of sanity and lucidity, you know that?

[endarkenment]

100. the policy is shoot to kill suspect suicide bombers

in public places, not to arrest them. But I agree, 'hit' is the wrong word. The right word here is fascism.

[Pert_UK]

109. And I, for one, have to agree with that policy......

or are you saying, for example, that it would be sensible or even vaguely effective to stand there arguing with one of those people who blew themselves up in my city a couple of weeks ago?

I kinda think that the sort of person who is prepared to be a suicide bomber is pretty likely to detonate themself the second they see a cop coming towards them.

Do you have a way of stopping them that is better than killing them before they kill themselves anyway, but taking a load of civilians with them?

[endarkenment]

122. yes we all realize

that you agree with, perhaps even applaud, the use of shoot to kill tactics on suspect suicide bombers. I just hope you don't walk out the wrong door one day.

There is no way a free society can guarantee security. We have to decide what is more important, freedom or security. You have made your choice, I've made mine.

[Pert_UK]

198. I don't think you understand that this isn't a black & white issue.

Personally, I'm against violent death in any form. I'm against the death penalty, for instance. I marched in the anti-war march through London (no, I don't want a medal or praise for this, just giving you some context).

I'd much rather that the police didn't have to have this policy, but at the moment I believe that there is no other sensible, practical way to protect the citizens of London from suicide bombers. I hate the fact that police have to have this policy, but IMHO they've been given no choice.

"There is no way a free society can guarantee security." - that's true.........So tell me, how many suicide bombers should we allow to blow themselves up before we allow the police to use more than harsh language?

And yeah, I know, he wasn't a suicide bomber - I'm afraid that this is irrelevant for the current debate if your position is that police shouldn't have shot EVEN IF he'd been packed with explosives.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[Pert_UK]

97. And maybe you're just somebody with no argument?

Just make an accusation and loads of assumptions - don't bother to read what I said or think about it for more than a second.

Much easier on the slower mind to just give me a convenient label and forget about me.

And thanks for implying that I'm racist - really appreciate that. Nice work on a progressive forum.

[fujiyama]

105. And what is your argument?

That the cops should have a free hand to do as they please because someone MIGHT be a terrorist?

THis is the sort of thinking that gave us the PATRIOT Act and the war in Iraq.

I'm just amazed that people can excuse this.

[Pert_UK]

203. My argument is......

that terrorists have demonstrated a willingness to detonate suicide bombs on trains.

The only effective way to stop a suicide bomber is to kill them.

It is (based on currently available evidence) understandable that this unfortunate Brazilian man was mistaken for a suicide bomber.

It is, therefore, understandable that the police shot and killed him.

Was killing an innocent man the "right" thing to do? Of course not. But is it right to have a policy that says that suicide bombers should be prevented from killing innocent people by any means necessary? IMHO yes. They didn't know he was innocent, and it appears that he gave them every reason to believe he was a bomber - he didn't do it on purpose and he didn't deserve to die, but I fail to see what else the police could have done.

[ConfuZed]

14. uhhhh show me where we've been critical of *everybody* in uniform

anyway I "reckon" that you don't fit their profile of a terrorist so it doesn't really matter to you who they kill or for what reason, if the facts are correct they let him board a bus they also let him get into a crowded area then when he falls they get on top of him and shoot him 8 times, face it they used bad judgment and btw they were not in uniform :)

[chelsea0011]

86. Thanks for the chart. I knew GTA3 was lowering the crime rate

outstanding use of statistics

[Pert_UK]

93. Well thanks awfully for being so terribly patronising about it.....

my comment about being critical of everybody in uniform was a more general one. Over the last few months on DU it's seemed like every time there was a story involving the police there have immediately been people queuing up to slag them off. I notice, once again, that virtually nobody here is willing to give the police officers even the benefit of the doubt, in spite of some fairly strong evidence in their favour.

Certainly it does go against them that they let him get on and off a bus before they challenged him - there may or may not be a rational explanation for that, e.g. that they were awaiting senior officers' OK to intervene. Who knows?

What we do know is that:

- he was told to stop but chose not to
- he ran away from the police and onto a crowded train
- there have been several bomb attacks on trains recently

Now, I don't think that these are necessary or sufficient grounds for his cold-blooded execution, and I don't think it makes his death "right" in any conceivable way.

However, I do think that it is completely understandable that the police could mistake him for a suicide bomber in these circumstances.

For what it's worth, I find it actually MORE reassuring that this guy wasn't really of Asian appearance - to me it makes me think that the police are treating all ethnicities as potential suicide bombers (ever hear of the shoe bomber? He was white....)

So thanks awfully for your snide comments about my own ethnicity, and for concluding that it doesn't really matter to me who they kill or for what reason. What a marvellous way to maintain the moral high-ground, eh?

[Romulus]

121. according to the one (poor) guy

with glasses who watched de Menezes' brains get blown out from five feet away (this is the "scared rabbit" description guy), de Menezes was "Asian."

[endarkenment]

135. 2 out of 3 aint bad

"What we do know is that:

- he was told to stop but chose not to
- he ran away from the police and onto a crowded train
- there have been several bomb attacks on trains recently"

It is not clear that he was told to stop. Eyewitness accounts do not confirm this assertion.

He did run onto a crowded train, he was chased there by non-uniformed policemen who may or may not have identified themselves.

There have been bomb attacks.

Why would you warn a suicide bomber in a crowded train station to stop? How do you reconcile that claim with your support for blowing this innocent persons brains out after he was detained based on the danger of self-demolition?

Do you think that perhaps there is something wrong with the police story as it is now being told? (We do know that version 1 of the incident was total crap.)

I am sorry if glaring contradictions in official stories cause some of us here on DU to Question Authority. Perhaps after we have been cowed by either enough bombs or enough police executions we too will stop asking for an explanation.

[Pert_UK]

199. I don't think I've ever been quite as offended.....

"Perhaps after we have been cowed by either enough bombs or enough police executions we too will stop asking for an explanation."

Insensitive, unreasonable, patronising, offensive, thoughtless, ignorant bullshit.

Thanks for your support - it's really classy to use a terrorist attack on my country as a basis for attack on my views. I'm terribly sorry that I haven't automatically fallen in line with your opinion, but some of us can think for ourselves. Does it make you feel like a big man (or big woman for all I know) to suggest that I've been cowed by bombs?

I've loved the years I've spent on DU but I'm getting increasingly scared by the number of people on here whose first reaction to anything is to attack authority and assume the very worst. I am also appalled by some of the people on here who launch vicious and personal attacks against anyone who doesn't step in line and march in time with their own views, and then have the audacity to accuse other people of advocating fascism.

I'd always thought DU was a place for debate, but it seems that some people just aren't willing to consider that somebody with the same broad political aims as them may actually disagree on certain issues.

[Name removed]

219. Deleted message

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

[alarcojon]

141. Richard Reid was white?

born in England of a Jamaican father and English mother

[barb162]

159. There's a hell of a lot of knee-jerk reaction going on,

isn't there? I think the London police are doing a marvelous job, from what I have been reading. Trying to protect such a huge city and so many people has to be beyond daunting.

[Zhade]

209. "benefit of the doubt"? How can you give them that?

Considering that they've lied repeatedly since the killing about just what happened, how on earth can you give them the benefit of the doubt?

[Minstrel Boy]

15. "It seems...it's open season on everybody in uniform"

Well, no. Because they weren't in uniform.

When the police "shoot to protect," in the head, eight times, an innocent and restrained man, expect a certain level of, what you might call, "paranoia."

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Romulus]

19. hey, Pert's not a Freeper

I disagree with him here, but I can vouch he's a good guy.

Edited to add: his arguments at least make some sense, as compared to some of the other pro-shooting arguments I have been reading these past few days . . .

[Pert_UK]

24. Cheers.

:toast:

P.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[endarkenment]

38. here is the official freeper framing

heard on the bbc this morning: 'it isn't a shoot to kill policy, it is a shoot to live policy'.

Every so often we all drink the koolaide.

[ConfuZed]

44. You couldnt have said it better endarkenment n/t

[Pert_UK]

85. Again, nonsense.......

The context of this comment was that the speaker was criticising the use of the phrase "shoot to kill" by the media.

The speaker was trying to highlight the fact that "killing" isn't the intended goal, or the point of the policy. Unfortunately the "killing" is a necessary means to an end, that end being the protection of innocent lives.

Shooting is ALL ABOUT KILLING - the police policy has always been that they shoot to kill, but they only shoot when circumstances leave them no other option.

Please feel free to give me a suitable alternative method for preventing suicide bombers from detonating their devices when challenged.

[endarkenment]

106. you have drunk deeply my friend

but in time it will pass out of your system.

[Pert_UK]

110. OK, so here's Me versus You.

Me: Here's my point of view - it's X, Y and Z. Here's why you're wrong.#

You: I know what you are, but what am I?

Don't suppose you know what ad hominem means, other wise I'd accuse you of it.....

[endarkenment]

114. eh?

Ok fine you called my post nonsense and then attack me for not following up with a reasoned argument. Whatever.

"Shoot to kill" is what they did and what the policy is. "Shoot to live" is dishonest language that attempts to obscure reality by reframing a negative: "blowing the brains out of detained suspects" into a positive: "keeping us safe from the bad bombers".

The fact that you are so deep into defending your position that you are actually trying to defend the reframing indicates that you have simply lost all perspective here. I suggest that you step back and take a deep breath and consider exactly what it is you are defending, and exactly how believable the stories coming out of the UK government are regarding this incident.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[AuntieM1957]

150. Didn't work very well, did it?

"The speaker was trying to highlight the fact that "killing" isn't the intended goal, or the point of the policy. Unfortunately the "killing" is a necessary means to an end, that end being the protection of innocent lives." - your post

Do you think the Brazilian felt protected? Do you disagree with me that he was innocent?

Or do you truly believe, in your most rational honest mind, that he deserved to die?

If you do, then I must conclude that you are either: 1) overcome with emotion due to the recent events in your country or 2) you fail to understand the unalienable rights for which my ancestors fought yours.

[Pert_UK]

204. With all due respect, your argument makes no sense.

"The speaker was trying to highlight the fact that "killing" isn't the intended goal, or the point of the policy. Unfortunately the "killing" is a necessary means to an end, that end being the protection of innocent lives." - your post

"Do you think the Brazilian felt protected?" - no I don't. So what?

"Do you disagree with me that he was innocent?" - no I don't. So what?

"Or do you truly believe, in your most rational honest mind, that he deserved to die?" - no I don't. So what?

There is nothing inconsistent in me saying all the above, and yet also saying that it is understandable that he was shot and killed, and that the police did nothing wrong (based on current evidence).

Consider the following similar example - a policeman sees a guy acting suspiciously. Policeman tells him to stop but he runs away. The guy pulls out a gun and runs towards a primary school. The policeman shoots him dead to protect the children from an armed man bursting in.

Would you have a problem with this, because I certainly wouldn't?

But what if it turns out that the gun was a fake and the guy was not a criminal? IMHO this means that the guy was innocent and didn't deserve to die, but that the policeman was still completely justified (given all available evidence) in shooting him dead.

This DOESN'T mean that I give blanket approval to the police shooting innocent people EVER. It only means that I can understand why, in this case, an innocent man ended up dead and I don't think you can blame the police for acting the way they did.

[sui generis]

267. hang in there

for some armchair scorekeepers here on DU, anyone who doesn't agree with them down the line on any topic is a freeper. We are our own worst enemy.

I certainly get it. I grew up in Germany with Baader Meinhoff, and lived in Italy with Black September. I was in the airport in Frankfurt on my way back to the united states in 1971 when it was bombed. Doubtless experience with the IRA gave you a base of experience that some these blustering know-nothings here on DU have no comprehension of.

What happened is terrible - there is no denying that. The self-proclaimed cognoscenti here would much rather have stopped and had a discussion about the merits how many bullets to use and whether to check for a deadman's switch before shooting. Fortunately they are posters on DU and not in law enforcement, and you can discount what they have to say if it was said in complete sheltered ignorance.

Even more irritating is that fact that the same people who accuse anyone who doesn't think and feel exactly the way they do of being a freeper goes further to accuse them of being incapable of thinking for themselves or merely repeating talking points. Again, not worth a reply.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

200. Did it occur to you

that this dude had ample time to detonate if he had a bomb?

[Pert_UK]

78. That is a completely moronic argument....

"why don't the police just bomb the entire subway system"....

So in your world:

Shooting somebody who is behaving suspiciously, who has attemped to evade you, who has rejected the opportunity to surrender, who you genuinely believe may be wearing a bomb belt and who runs away from you onto a crowded train

is the same as

Killing them all and letting God sort them out.

It's NOT the same thing AT ALL. Next time you catch me advocating the latter then pull me up on it, but in the meantime do me the courtesy of actually attacking what I'm saying.

[endarkenment]

116. perhaps you have made a few assumptions here

"Shooting somebody who is behaving suspiciously, who has attemped to evade you, who has rejected the opportunity to surrender, who you genuinely believe may be wearing a bomb belt and who runs away from you onto a crowded train."

There is no evidence that de Menezes behaved suspiciously other than to exit a communal entrance to an apartment building under surveillance.

There is no evidence that de Menezes attempted to evade anyone. He walked to the bus stop, got on the bus to the train, got off the bus at the train stop and then.... he was on his way to work it seems.

No evidence of a bomb belt. In fact the whole inappropriatly thick overcoat stuff seems to be going down the memory hole. There is at least one report that this was a jean jacket.

The "runs away from you" is also dubious. Witnesses are not reporting any attempt to order de Menezes to halt. The group that chased and executed him was plainclothes. The execution has been justified by the claim that he could have set off his bomb. Why would they warn him verbally if that were the case?

[bushisanidiot]

130. "believed to be wearing a bomb-belt"

ok.. so how did they come to that conclusion?? just guessing??

where's the guy's "belt"? where's the evidence that this guy was doing anything wrong at all?

give me a break.

this incident has all the markings of a hit job..

[ConfuZed]

26. Self-Deleted

[Sterling]

142. not a Freeper just scared.

When people are afriad they tend to look for father figures to pprotect them. Much of the country is like this these days.

[Pert_UK]

205. Thanks, but I don't need this kind of help. n/t

[Sterling]

263. I am not really interested in helping anyone, sorry mate.

I was really only making an observation that there is a lot of hysteria going around these days and it tends to make people look for comfort/protection in authority figures even if those figures are not capable of helping them or even have there best interests in mind.

The Germans were desperate enough to let the Nazi's do what they did, Americans are frightened, angry and manipulated enough to let Bush do what he has done. Now it seems the UK will also descend into this kind of flight or fight mentality.

[Pert_UK]

272. No, you're right.....

I'm so scared after the bombings that I defintely DIDN'T go into London on July 8th, and certainly didn't go in on 13th, and I CERTAINLY advocate the killing of anyone who looks a bit dodgy.

[Sterling]

274. Thanks for admitting your fear is getting the better of you.

It's not uncommon these days. Hopefully you will have more peaceful days ahead and will reassess your opinion when things are clearer.

The leaders we elect unfortunately do not have the option of panicking at times like these, yet it seems they do anyway. It's never good to make important policy decisions based on fear.

[Pert_UK]

275. Wow....who says Americans don't understand irony?

Go back to my post, re-read it, and understand that I meant the exact opposite of each thing I said.

i.e. I DID go into London the day after the bombings....etc

[Sterling]

277. You said you were afraid?

And I went back into DT NYC on 9-11, oh wait I live there I had no choice, hmm. I like you let my fear get the better of me for a few days. I believed a lot of the BS being spewed by the Gov. After time things became clearer. I hope things clear up for you in time.

[Pert_UK]

284. No I didn't........

I was being ironic/sarcastic.

My point was that I chose to go into London and use public transport the day after the bombings, even though my errand could easily have waited until a later date.

I'm not swallowing bullshit here, I'm taking all things into consideration. I am JUST NOT prepared to take, as my starting position, the stance that anything said by anybody in authority is a lie.

I'm not saying the police are perfect, I'm just saying that they shouldn't be pre-judged.

[Sterling]

287. Well you should type what you mean.

There is no way of knowing that you actually did the opposite of what you posted, I am not a mind reader. Maybe you could post more clearly in the future. I made the mistake of taking you at your word, I will be more careful in the future.

Never the less your opinion reeks of fear IMHO.

[Pert_UK]

23. Shooting "everyone"????

And actually there have been several apologies.

I'm not disputing that something terrible happened, but I just don't believe (given present evidence) that an error of judgment was made here. A series of unfortunate coincidences have led to a terrible tragedy, but I don't see that the cops had any choice in this situation.

[ConfuZed]

30. Sure they had choices

They could have arrested him at his residence before he boarded a bus and allowed to get in a crowded area.

[sattahipdeep]

42. why

they don't have non-lethal weapons?

[High Plains]

46. No error of judgement??????

Sir, they shot and killed an innocent man after he was immobilized. I don't know how you don't call that in error in judgement.

Actually, it goes deeper. I'd have to say it was an error in policy.

[MadHound]

59. Well you can "believe" anything you wish friend,

But the fact of the matter is that rather than reacting in a cool, calm, rational matter at a time when it mattered most, these men let their fear and loathing get the better of them, and summarily executed a dark skinned man. That had ample opportunities to restrain and detain him before he reached the tube. They had ample opportunity to non-fatally neutalize him. Yet these officers didn't take these opportunities. Instead they ran him to the ground, pinned him down, and executed him.

In my opinion officers this incompetent and fearful don't belong on any police force. And Blair's official apologies are small comfort to Meneze's family and friends. They also do little to calm the fear that every dark skinned person in Britian feels right now, for all of these people realize that it could be one of them next.

[LisaL]

145. What's an apology is going to do for a dead man?

[barb162]

196. perhaps ask that of the people wanting the apology

[TroglodyteScholar]

76. Actually, the police chief said he was sorry (eom)

:)

[LisaL]

146. The guy is dead, I don't think he cares if chief of police is sorry.

When you kill someone, an apology just doesn't seem adequate somehow.

[tblue37]

112. Now, now--be fair.

They did issue an official apology.

[StrafingMoose]

39. 7 shots in the head...

IS questionable.

[barb162]

54. Police in any metropolitan area would have done the exact same

thing, I think, including in Brazil, or anywhere else on this planet if they had just had a series of bombings killing and wounding hundreds of people. I am with you!!! When the police say stop, this man should have stopped. My understanding is he knew English well.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

60. Incredible.

[barb162]

157. What's incredible is all the 20/20 hindsight here

[RetroLounge]

69. Fucking amazing...

"When the police say stop, this man should have stopped"

Nice justification for an execution. I've heard the same thing out of freeps.

RL

[barb162]

158. That was not an execution, it was a very horrible mistake

and the police have admitted as much. Monday morning quarterbacking is always so fucking amazingly brilliant.

[RetroLounge]

164. Yup. Whoops, we blew your dark-skinned brains

all over the place.

Sorry. But you should have stopped. Whoops. Our bad. So sorry...

:eyes:

RL

[barb162]

178. Split second decisions can end up this way

and it happens often in this country when a cop tells a person to put their hands up and instead a person reaches into a pocket. Same result.

[LisaL]

184. They had a lot of time to decide what to do.

Apparently, it was quite a long bus ride they allowed their suspected "bomber" to take.

[barb162]

191. We will find out, but once they told him to stop, I think the decision

making became split second

[Pert_UK]

87. Thank God for that, there ARE still people on here who can...

read and understand an opinion!

Thanks!

:hi:

P

[barb162]

152. Well

Thank you too and hello!

I think the last thing the police wanted to do was shoot an innocent person. The police are under very extreme duress right now and probably will be for several weeks. My heart goes out to the people of London and to the police who are trying to protect them.

[fujiyama]

89. How the fuck was he supposed to know they were copps?!

All the apologists I've seen for this don't address that fact.

Especially considering there have been hundreds of hate crimes against anyone looking middle eastern or south asian.

[Pert_UK]

98. Well, if they didn't announce that they were cops....

then the story is completely different and they'll probably be in a shit load of trouble.

However, I notice that you're assuming that they didn't announce that they were police. I'd be very surprised if they didn't - it is standard practice to shout "Armed police", and this guy had been in the UK long enough to understand the word "police".

Maybe they didn't - there were enough witnesses, I'm sure we'll find out.

[fujiyama]

102. Even if they did announce

how was he supposed to trust them? There have been many incidents of hate crimes and I'm sure in some cases the thugs may have claimed they were cops as well.

Of course this is saying nothing about the fact that they shot him multiple times AFTER he was subdued.

[Pert_UK]

107. WTF?!?!?!?

"There have been many incidents of hate crimes" - well actually, not that many to be honest. There have been a few, but police have praised the restraint of the publice.

"I'm sure in some cases the thugs may have claimed they were cops as well." - oh, you're sure, are you? Well that's OK then, it must be true - let's not worry about any evidence then.....

So what are you saying - that now the police shouldn't pursue or use force against somebody who refuses to stop for them?

And yes, he was shot multiple times but we don't know for sure whether he was subdued - if he was struggling then maybe they felt he was going for a bomb trigger. Who knows? I don't, and neither do you.

[fujiyama]

113. It's easy for you to say

there haven't been many because you're white. I'm tired of seeing apologists for the paranoia that has swept the country.

Try being south Asian and you'll know what it's like being chased by white gangs.

[Pert_UK]

202. More claims without evidence.....

OK - yes, I happen to be white, although you didn't know that. Many apologies for that. Sue me.

"I'm tired of seeing apologists for the paranoia that has swept the country." - which country? The UK? I wouldn't say that paranoia has swept the country. In fact, I would say that there has been remarkable restraint considering the fact that the media is constantly telling us about all these Asian Muslim extremists. I'm afraid that yes, people in general are more wary about Asian men with big rucksacks on public transport, but that's primarily because several Asian men with big rucksacks blew themselves up a couple of weeks ago. If those men had been Nordic women, we'd all be wary of tall blondes with rucksacks, but that doesn't make us racist.

"Try being south Asian and you'll know what it's like being chased by white gangs."

Sorry, I can't try that, it's impossible. I have, however, spent some time in China where my friends and I were often intimidated and discriminated against, and one of my friends did get chased home by a group of drunken Chinese youths one night.......but so what?

If, as seems likely, the police identified themselves as police then there was no reason for the guy to fear a gang attack, despite your (currently baseless) claims about gangs of racists claiming to be police officers. This also seems unlikely given that there are virtually no recorded incidents of gangs going around armed with guns committing racist attacks.

[lockdown]

129. Standard practice has been changed.

The guidelines were updated earlier this year, and a warning isn't required before shooting now.

[lockdown]

151. No warning required

Clarifying my own post, police guidelines were updated this February but the change on giving warnings might have been earlier than that, don't know. Probably was earlier though, because the Kratos shoot-to-kill tactics were implemented while John Stevens was head of the Met.

[LisaL]

147. Witnesses describing the shooting didn't hear them announcing

they were cops.

[FlaGranny]

136. I don't really remember that happening either in New York

or Washington on September 11, 2001.

[barb162]

161. The only news around 9/11 was on 9/11 and nothing else

as I recall. But the air force was ready to shoot down planes that were still in the air after the order was given to get all civil and commercial planes down. I certainly remember that. And if the air force had shot down an "innocent" plane, I wonder if we would be on this board "talking" in the same way as we are here on the Brazilian man.

[Sterling]

162. I am sure we would.

Not all of us are so scared shitless we lose common sense.

[barb162]

171. We can endlessly monday morning quarterback this one

and if an air force jet had shot down a commercial plane on 9-11. And for all the people who would say it was terible but what else could the Air Force pilot do, there would be others dissing the pilot for killing the innocent people on the plane. Each opinion is valid and worthy.

When I think of those London cops who shot that Brazilian man, and all other security/police/military who have to make instantaneous decisions that have life and death consequences I think there but for the grace of god go I and I am so damned glad I wasn't one of those cops or military put in that position. That is why I will give them the benefit of the doubt until I see evidence to the contrary.

[LisaL]

186. Well, there was a lot of discussion whether the plane that

crashed in PA was actually shot down.

[ConfuZed]

176. We don't do it here in the US and we've lost the most.

Do you remember the man with the two large suitcases in Washington DC?

[barb162]

185. No I don't remember the suitcase story; when was it, what

came of it, etc.

[ConfuZed]

192. Heres the story with video

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/11/national/main687351.shtml

(CBS/AP) In a bizarre incident outside the U.S. Capitol Monday afternoon, police snuck up on a man dressed in black who seemed unresponsive, except that he repeated a request to see the president.

The man, apparently of Chinese descent, stood in front of the Capitol with two large suitcases, CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart reports. The odd request and his black clothing triggered alarms, and soon the police had surrounded him with a SWAT team.

The man refused to say anything else to an officer who tried to talk with him, authorities said.

"He was not very responsive," said U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer. "The officer felt it was a possible suicide bomber."

[barb162]

195. Now I remember it

That was bizarro. Even if he had bombs in those cases, do you notice how open it was there? Versus a tube, that is. (Just on the face of it, if he wanted to see the ol' prez, he should have gone to the right address, the White House, instead of the Capitol, huh? They probably had him tagged for the loony bin as soon as he said that)

[MadHound]

55. I don't know about Britain, but our police here in the US

Receive extensive training in hand to hand combat, including how to KO people with one shot. Don't you think that the wisest thing to do would be to KO this fellow(should have been easy since they had him pinned prone to the ground). After all, if he was a terrorist, they could have picked up valuable information that may have prevented a future attack. And then again, if the guy wasn't a terrorist, the police would have only had to apologize the a bump on the head, instead of summarily executing an innocent human being.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

58. Speaking of "uninformed nonsense...getting out of control"....

...let's review your post, shall we?

1. The police were NOT in uniform. So much for your rather ignorant remark about "open season on everybody in uniform".

2. Once the police had the man down, why didn't they check to see if he had a bomb before they killed him?

3. If he had been carrying a bomb, do you think shooting him once in the shoulder and seven times in the head would have somehow disarmed the bomb? Think about this one...some suicide bombers have a so-called "dead man's" trigger which keeps the bomb from exploding as long as the bomber is alive and holding the switch.

In conclusion, it should be painfully obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with this case that you don't know what you're talking about. It's one thing to provide constructive criticism coming from a command of the facts, it's quite another to come across as lacking the ability to correctly process critical information.

[LisaL]

181. Or the bomb could have been on a plain old timer.

Shooting the guy wouldn't stop the explosion.
Anybody recalls that poor pizza deliver men strapped to a bomb and ordered to rob a bank? He was sitting down, with police looking at him, and the bomb went off before the bomb squad had gotten to it.
The case still isn't solved, as far as I know.

[The Stranger]

61. Seven shots, point blank, to the back of the head is an execution,

especially when the target is already lying down on the ground.

[Pert_UK]

99. Yes and no.......

I'm not debating that they deliberately killed him. They certainly did.

Unlike 99% of people on this thread (and you're all entitled to your opinon) I'm saying that I can understand why they did it, and given all the available evidence so far, I think that they had little other choice.

I DON'T think that it's a good thing that he died, and I'm very unhappy that an innocent person has been shot by the police.

All I'm saying is that it's impossible to differentiate somebody who BEHAVES like a suicide bomber from somebody who IS one. This guy was given the opportunity to stop. I'm very, very sorry that he didn't, but what were the police supposed to think and do?

[The Stranger]

125. The fact that you are afraid does not justify someone's illegal execution.

Whatever "understand(ing)" you have regarding the police is immaterial to the fact that laws were broken, including one of the oldest, the premediatated taking of a human life.

[Pert_UK]

210. That fact that you make assumptions about me kinda undermines...

your position.

How DARE you presume to know what informs my opinion?

Tell you what - if you can't cope with logical, intelligent debate, why not ignore my arguments and the comments I've made, simply label me as scared too think straight.

And incidentally......"premediatated"???

Ho ho.

Even if you mean "premeditated" I still think you're wrong. The police action was only as "premeditated" as shooting somebody waving a gun around in a station - although we British do have a reputation for fair play, that doesn't mean we'll wait to be shot before we shoot back.

[The Stranger]

218. Did I touch a nerve?

How DARE you presume to know what informs my opinion?

Your opinions and your fear are all over the thread. It didn't take much of a presumption.

Tell you what - if you can't cope with logical, intelligent debate, why not ignore my arguments and the comments I've made, simply label me as scared too think straight.

Done.

And incidentally......"premediatated"???

Thanks for correcting my spelling. Unfortunately, it doesn't really address the points made in my post to you. Feel free to spell check any of my other posts and let me know what you find (but do also address the substance of the posts).

Even if you mean "premeditated" I still think you're wrong. The police action was only as "premeditated" as shooting somebody waving a gun around in a station - although we British do have a reputation for fair play, that doesn't mean we'll wait to be shot before we shoot back.

I am talking about the legal definition of "premeditated." If he plugged seven rounds into the back of a man's head while that man was lying on the ground, he likely meets the test for "premeditated" -- an element of the crime of murder.

Now you can go spell check. ;)

[Pert_UK]

231. I've got no idea what you're touching mate, but it's not a nerve...

So great - same accusation with no evidence presented again, more accusations, mention of a "legal definition" (where? UK, US?) with no evidence anyway...etc. etc. etc.

I bet you go down a dream at debating club.

"But I kept shouting the same thing? How come I didn't win?..."

[The Stranger]

254. The definitions are very, very similar.

mention of a "legal definition" (where? UK, US?) with no evidence anyway...etc. etc. etc.

Murder was defined at common law, and any U.S. jurisdictions likely draw upon English definitions, so the definition of "premeditated" would be very, very similar.

And based on the evidence of eyewitnesses reported in the media, the actions here were very, very likely to be premeditated.

[PassingFair]

175. How did this guy "behave" like a suicide bomber?

"it's impossible to differentiate somebody who BEHAVES like a suicide bomber from somebody who IS one."

What a pantload!

You mean someone who LOOKS like a suicide bomber!

Undercover cops should never expect someone to "stop".
I certainly wouldn't.

Reminds me of the DWB's that happen around where I live.

That's Driving Whilst Black, FYI....

This was a major SNAFU, and they had better get their policies cleaned up, and some further training if you guys are going to arm your cops to the teeth.

[Pert_UK]

211. Hoorah, more nonsense....

I didn't say that he DELIBERATELY behaved like a suicide bomber. His behaviour was, IMHO and according to current evidence, very similar to how a suicide bomber would have behaved in the same circumstances.

"...they had better get their policies cleaned up, and some further training if you guys are going to arm your cops to the teeth."

FYI their policies have been extremely well developed, examined and re-examined and clearly stated. In addition, there is always a thorough investigation into any police use of firearms.

Moreover, our firearms officers have all volunteered to become firearms officers, putting themselves into the firing line on my behalf, and they have all undergone EXTREMELY thorough and specialist training.

Using phrases like "armed to the teeth" suggests that you have little understanding of how things work over here, but don't let that stop you....

[Jersey Devil]

62. "something questionable"?

Talk about British "understatement".

Executing people in a response that can only be considered as hysteria cannot be considered "something questionable." It is an abuse of the ultimate power held by a law enforcement officer with a gun. Even if their motives were to protect the public their training in the use of those powers had to have been abominable.

[Pert_UK]

104. It is "questionable"....

It is unquestionable that somebody innocent died and that it is a tragedy.

The cops' actions are, at present, questionable - there is an enquiry to work out whether they acted properly or not.

I've said it a few times in this thread now - there's no way to tell a suicide bomber from somebody who is merely ACTING in the same way as a suicide bomber, whether intentionally or not.

I AM very sorry that a visitor to my country has been killed by my police force.....but it seems to me that all the evidence thus far points at a series of unforunate coincidences that led police to genuinely believe that they had a bomber in front of them, bolting for a crowded train.

[digno dave]

128. I agree, Pert

...i am, however, curious to know what the police define as "running away" is.
It is silly to get on here and start throwing around claims of white cops hunting down brown people.

[Pert_UK]

206. Thanks for the support......beginning to think I was alone!

:cheers:

[Nihil]

208. Thanks to those who have tried to keep an element of sanity

Well done Pert, Taxloss, Barb and those others who have tried to keep
a modicum of sanity in this incredibly over-charged topic (and to the
mods for stomping on the most blatant accusations of freeperism).

You are not alone though you do appear to be in the distinct minority
of people who can think in the context of the event rather than simply
after wading through days of "news" updates since then.

:applause:

Nihil

[moondust]

212. Something I've noticed about these threads.

DUers from the UK almost always give the police the benefit of the doubt. DUers from the U.S. almost always bash the cops. Of course the latter never ride and certainly do not depend on London transit systems. I would guess that virtually none has ever spent a fortnight in London or long enough to know that the public's relationship with the police there is quite different from that found in the United States of Violence and Police Brutality.

Monday morning quarterbacking can be great fun from a padded chair under an air conditioner.

[Pert_UK]

236. Another voice of sanity in the wilderness......

thank you.

:hi:

P.

[RetroLounge]

66. "open season on everybody in uniform"

I thought they were undercover cops?

:shrug:

RL

[Pert_UK]

108. That was a more general comment on DUers view on cops. n/t

[RetroLounge]

165. All 70,000 DU'ers?

That's pretty general...

RL

[Pert_UK]

207. No, all the DUers who have been making comments on cops....

Recently I would estimate that 90% of cop-related comments have been very, very negative.

[RetroLounge]

214. Again, out of 70,000, the percentage is low

RL

[Pert_UK]

215. Errr.....so what?

What on Earth am I supposed to do?

I can only make comments about the comments I've seen on DU recently. Am I supposed to poll all 70,000 members to find out their views?

My point was that the vast majority of police-related comments that I've seen on DU recently have been very negative. Certainly a few people have criticised these negative comments, but that doesn't change my opinion, namely that there is a lot of negativity directed at cops by people posting on DU.

[RetroLounge]

261. And if you saw 5 posts and 4 of them were negative

that is 80% and is HUGE. Except in the grand scheme of things, with 70,000 DU'ers, it don't mean shit.

RL

[Pert_UK]

271. What on Earth are you talking about?

I'm not denying that 5 posts is hardly representative of DU as a whole. What I'm confused about is that I'm saying, "I'm fed up with seeing cop-bashing posts on DU and hardly anybody defending the police or saying that we shouldn't jump to conclusions."

In my reecnt experience of DU that is an accurate representation - the number of anti-cop posts highly outweighs the number of pro-cop posts.

I'm asserting my recent experience, you're simply claiming that this doesn't mean "shit", but without offering any explanation. Tell you what - take a look at the posts in this thread. See how many people are happily jumping to the conclusion that British cops are trigger-happy, racist thugs, just ITCHING to kill someone brown. Now contrast that with the number of people even vaguely prepared to concede that the cops were in a difficult situation, or might actually be completely destroyed by the fact that they've killed an innocent man........

Come back to me with your findings.....

[RetroLounge]

273. No thanks.

:eyes:

RL

[Pert_UK]

276. Oh sorry, I forgot.....

You're not actually interested in finding out whether you're right or wrong - far better to just repeat your own opinion and then be sarcastic when somebody tells you where to look for actual evidence.

When did this place turn into Dogmatic Underground?

You're a genius.

:eyes:

[RetroLounge]

278. Dogmatic Underground

:rofl:

Hows that bulky coat the guy was wearing?

oops, another police lie...

RL

[TroglodyteScholar]

75. Speaking of paranoid, uninformed nonsense...

What do you think leads police forces to murder innocents?

I'm guessing paranoia and lack of information play into that...


I'm not saying it was an easy situation to handle, and I have no idea how I would have behaved in those mens' shoes. Still, you just can't have a policy of following brown people around and then killing them when they act the least bit fishy. I respect cops and think they do one of the most difficult jobs there is -- but there will be no good excuse if this kind of thing happens again.

[goforit]

80. Were you there?....Excuses for sloppiness.

[Tom Bombadil]

163. Were you?

[mknmehappy]

88. Very good Point!

[jwcomer]

111. Why the double standards?

Couldn't shooting someone in the head 7 times because they might have a bomb, itself be considered paranoid and uninformed? Might it not even be considered to have gone too far?

[Frederik]

118. Here's a detailed analysis of the event

I would suggest reading it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4184924

[digno dave]

127. This is the point i have been making...try to understand the level of

anxiety over ther right now. Knowing what i know about teh case now, it was a horrible accident, but not necessarily egregious.

[neuvocat]

134. Quit trying to justify the shooting, dammit!

They used excessive force. If you actually read the article yourself you would see that. Those cops are charged with a great deal of responsibility during an emergency situation. They're supposed to protect the public at large and not just turn into a bunch of reckless chickenshits just because they've seen someone running around with wires sticking out of their clothing.

I'm sure those cops were just as terrified as everyone else, which makes their use of firearms so much worse, and they definately couldn't fucking aim very well.

[Pert_UK]

234. So you're shouting at me to stop disagreeing with you?

Which part of "democratic" did you miss?

For your information I HAVE read the article.

I have also watched HOURS of news about this (decent news programmes too, incidentally) and spend around 2 hours each day listening to the most authoratitive radio news I've ever found (BBC Radio 4), which has included a lot of interviews with the politicians and people involved.

The cops were enforcing agreed policy against somebody who acted suspiciously and refused to co-operate.

He didn't deserve to die, it is a tragedy and I am sickened that my society has been driven to this level.

I still maintain that this is the correct way to deal with suicide bombers and regrettably the victim genuinely looked and reacted like one.....that doesn't make it OK, but it does make the police reaction reasonable IMHO. (and given current evidence)

[neuvocat]

283. I haven't been yelling at you at all.

I also haven't tried to justify any sort of reckless actions taken up by someone with a gun. Its funny how you still try to defend this despite the apology that came from the chief of police.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[freedomburn]

8. Het, this man had VERY dark skin. Which obviously makes him a

suspect, if not an alleged perpetrator. He's lucky they didn't shoot him 41 times like Ahmed Amadou Diallo in New York.

[alarcojon]

37. his skin wasn't even that dark....

[fryguy]

2. heard he was shot while on the ground

unbelievable! and now the London police have come out and said that more innocent people might be killed because of the intense search going on

[Pert_UK]

13. Yes - so what?

Yes, it is tragic that they killed an innocent man, but if he HAD been a suicide bomber then the police action would have been understandable and entirely justified. The guy had (if reports are to be believed) run from police and onto a crowded train - it wouldn't have taken very much for him to detonate bomb.

[Bridget Burke]

20. Shooting anyone is OK--they might have been a suicide bomber!

Especially if they are dark-skinned & running from men in plain clothes carrying assault weapons.

Once again: Why did they let him on & off a bus before murdering him? Buses can blow up, too.

[Pert_UK]

90. I said it before, I'll say it again....

So in your world:

Shooting somebody who is behaving suspiciously, who has attemped to evade you, who has rejected the opportunity to surrender, who you genuinely believe may be wearing a bomb belt and who runs away from you onto a crowded train

is the same as

Killing them all and letting God sort them out.

It's NOT the same thing AT ALL. Next time you catch me advocating the latter then pull me up on it, but in the meantime do me the courtesy of actually attacking what I'm saying.

You may note that I've done you the courtesy of acknowledging your excellent point - why did they let him on and off a bus?

I don't know that answer to this - maybe we'll find out soon, maybe we won't - but in the meantime I think I'll continue to believe that this was a tragic case of circumstances leading police to the wrong conclusions. We DO NOT HAVE a bunch of trigger-happy morons in (or out of) uniform running around killing everyone with a suntan. As you'll note from the massive enquiry that has immediately kicked off, we take our police shootings very seriously.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

21. Let's hope you or your loved ones aren't next on the "accident" list.

It's all fine and dandy to speculate on what great heroes the plain clothes policemen would have been if the guy ended up being a bomber...but the cold, hard FACT is HE WASN'T. He was completely INNOCENT. Just like you would be, if this tragedy happened to you or your loved ones.

NO AMOUNT OF JUSTIFICATION WILL SUFFICE FOR COLD-BLOODED MURDER. PERIOD.

JB

[bushisanidiot]

22. If some thugs were chasing you, would you run?

sorry, but running from angry crazy people is a natural reaction..

[Minstrel Boy]

32. "if he HAD been a suicide bomber"

If Iraq HAD been a threat

SAME LOGIC

[President Kerry]

187. very bad analogy

you had 12 years to figure out if Iraq was a threat.. versus split seconds to see if Menezes was a bomber. A few degrees of magnitude, who cares...

[President Kerry]

188. very bad analogy

you had 12 years to figure out if Iraq was a threat.. versus split seconds to see if Menezes was a bomber. A few degrees of magnitude, who cares...

[bullimiami]

40. im sorry but if they thought he was a suicide bomber they should

have stopped him well before he got where he finally was. out on the street away from people.

if he WAS an actual bomber the bomb would likely have been detonated and a lot of people killed.

this is bad police work any way you look at it.

[fryguy]

71. brown skin + back pack = suicide bomber?

considering anyone COULD be a suicide bomber does this mean its open season on anyone who MAY look suspicious?

[President Kerry]

189. I would imagine there are thousands of brown-skinned people in

the London tube. Fortunately, none of them run from the police when the city is on edge. It may have been a bad judgment on the part of the police, but it was even a worse judgment on the part of Menezes. Tragically, it cost him his life.

[fryguy]

224. but if they did run or act suspicious at all it would be ok to shoot them?

what if they didn't pay their fare and were running away? would it be proper to kill them? how about if they were in a rush to get to work and weren't aware that the men chasing - wearing PLAIN CLOTHES not uniforms - were police? their death would be justified and acceptable?

london is on edge for sure, but that doesn't mean cops should be given a pass to become trigger happy and shooting anyone who appears or acts remotely suspicious.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

72. And just how do you think the actions of the police would have....

...prevented a real bomber from carrying out his task? By the time the police had him on the ground they should have known almost immediately that he didn't have a bomb.

Your continued argument for the police in this instance is becoming more ridiculous with each additional post.

[TroglodyteScholar]

79. "it wouldn't have taken very much for him to detonate bomb"

It wouldn't have taken very much? I think he probably would have needed a bomb!

[LisaL]

120. I agree. To be able to detonate a bomb, at the very minimum,

one actually needs to have a bomb.

[fujiyama]

91. It's OK

to shoot suspicious people if they're brown, or have foreign features right?

My guess is you're white, so you'll not understand the paranoia minorities are feeling in the UK. Considering these people were in plain clothes chasing his with guns...I'd say running makes sense.

[jwcomer]

126. How can you be so flippant? n/t

[Benhurst]

3. It's hard to keep track of the number of shots when

The Tonies are doing a hit job.

[mrfrapp]

36. Hard to keep track.

True. To be clear, I'm wasn't passing judgement on the eye-witness accounts. I merely wanted to point out that the information about there being five head shots is now not entirely accurate.

It would be prudent therefore when discussing this topic in the future, to link to this story in addition to any stories that mention that there were "only" five head shots.

[alarcojon]

4. Another lie regarding this case?

How f'ing incompetent are these people at covering up what really happened without calling more attention to themselves?

on edit: this one looks more like a discrepancy between the eyewitness accounts and the official story than a lie. In the interests of fairness.

[slackmaster]

5. They're better shots than New York or Los Angeles police

Much better hit-to-miss ratio.

Now if they'd just work a little harder on target selection and threat analysis...

:eyes:

[ConfuZed]

17. Not really

They were on top of the guy when they shot him

[LisaL]

50. Yes, it was point blank. But still, they haven't shot each other in

the foot, so -job well done!

[slackmaster]

52. London police haven't shot any innocent dogs yet

That puts them head and shoulders over several US urban PDs.

[slackmaster]

51. NYPD hit Amadou Diallo only 19 out of 41 times at very close range

That's appalling shooting, to say nothing of the fact that Diallo was unarmed and trying to comply with the officers by reaching for his wallet.

[Tempest]

115. But unlike Diallo, this was at point blank range

He was shot at less than 3 feet.

Diallo's shooting was at a distance of approx. 10 to 15 feet. Some of the cops were further away.

[LisaL]

7. Oh come on. Contradicts the eye witnesses report?

How silly is that? If you are witnessing someone being shot, are you really in the position to accurately count how many times this person was shot?

[mrfrapp]

18. I wasn't making a judgement

I wasn't making a judgement I was simply stating that this new information is different to the information that we had before.

[Romulus]

12. had to make up for the letting him get on the bus.

As I have said, those Kipling-esque Victorian-era attitudes among the UK government don't seem to have gone away over there, but instead now have the color of law. I know you UK folks are just defending your nation's honor over this incident, so I don't blame you.

However, this whole incident made me think twice about jogging on the platform to catch the metro this morning. . . . can't be "running while Arab-looking," ya know . . .:scared:

[sattahipdeep]

27. That should have eleminated his head n/t

[meganmonkey]

31. Oh, man...

Well, let's see if the authorities in Britain learn from all this or if this becomes a habit.

What a horrible situation.

[dolgoruky]

41. To those who say he "could" have been a terrorist...

...it "could" have been you!

[sattahipdeep]

45. It's certainly possible

:hi:

[yellowcanine]

67. He "could have" been a Nobel prize winning chemist as well - or maybe

he "could have" discovered a cure for AIDS or melanoma. Or maybe he "could have" been a good father and husband. Of course now we will never know, will we?

[lumpy]

47. "victim of terrorist attack"

so sayeth London Mayor Livingston. More like a victim of incompetence and foolhardy judgement. I believe the men doing the chasing were taking orders from upper authority (via radio) who were not on the scene. Correct me if I'm wrong. If so, sometimes it is better to leave the response to those who are directly involved.

[lockdown]

57. Yes, the order came from a "gold commander" in Scotland Yard.

According to reports, Menezes had already reached the tube station when they were ordered to stop him reaching the platform, and given shoot to kill authorisation.

[lumpy]

74. Thanks, I wasn't sure I had read

this correctly. Maybe that "gold commander" in Scotland Yard has some explaining to do also. Sounds like a reckless decision made by someone who was not on the scene.

[PurityOfEssence]

48. Wow, I've always found that a couple of shots to the head did fine

Hell, Lincoln and a couple of Kennedys only got one.

Just goes to show that when one doesn't have ready access to handguns, it just feeds the frenzy.

[Tsiyu]

49. All dark people stay home

and submit to any goons who approach you.

Who is Menezes? That's one question.

FWIW, the cops routinely shoot young, poor males in the streets of some of Brasil's cities. How ironic that this young man escaped that fate only to meet the same in the more "civilized" UK.

[lumpy]

56. Great point

n/t

[The Stranger]

63. Murder.

[Buns_of_Fire]

65. Damned if they do, damned if they don't

If nothing else, it points out that the intervention techniques (in all countries) need a lot more thought put into them.

Intercept outside the terminal? Fine, if you've set up a perimeter to accomplish that. Problem is, any scanning outside the terminal is going to cause logjams, too. Potential for a lotta dead people if a bomber strolls up (although the British are more inclined to politely queue up, rather than form a mob around a checkpoint like Americans are wont to do).

Shoot first, ask questions later? Well, the police don't want to get blown up any more than you or I do. But what if the bomb is set up with a collapsing-circuit trigger (the kind that only sets off the bomb if the trigger is released)? (I'm not giving away any secrets or handy helpful tips here -- that setup has already been done, too.)

Seven head-shots is overkill, but I'm inclined to think that the policemen were in mortal fear of their lives at that moment. I'll wait for the inquiry before congratulating or condemning anyone.

[lumpy]

77. By the time they snagged the man

they were ordered to shoot to kill by Scotland Yard authority. Overkill certainly. Poor judgement by someone who was not on the scene. Perhaps if that decision had been left up to the men doing the chasing it would have been a different story. But then higher authority is not always right, as well we know. I feel sick and saddened for the death of this young man. I also feel sad for the man who did the killing. It's his conscience he has to live with, just like those coallition soldiers in Iraq.

[LisaL]

137. I imagine they had permission to kill him. Not a order to kill him.

[LisaL]

138. Well, if the bomb had a dead man trigger, but shooting the guy,

police would have set it off, don't you think?
They shot him in a shoulder, considering they had no clue where on his body he would have had this "bomb", they could have set it off.
It's just stupid and sloppy police work all the way around.

[mogster]

70. The Met. police have had nearly four years to prepare for this

It is four years since the 911 attacks, and the UK police, anti-terror-forces and government has had every opportunity to prepare for terrorist attacks. Yet none of the attacks was discovered until the damage was done. Worse, the attacks two weeks later flunked because of bad bomb-making, not because the authorities investigated and hindered them. They didn't have a clue.

Nor did the cops shooting this poor man, they acted like a possé. Suspicion, verdict and execution - all desicions taken in a matter of hours, if not minutes. If we're gonna accept that the police can shoot people on a hunch, law and order is a thing of the past.

But I can see the situation the cops on the ground were in here, it is the same situation the US troops face every day in Iraq.
And here, just as there, it is the overall doctrine, and the people that promotes that doctrine that is to blame. Kick upwards instead of blaming the cops for overreacting; start to ask why no one foresaw the July 7th attacks in the UK government. Has Blair's unjust, illegal, phoney war made us all safer?

A couple of months ago I saw Tony Blair emasculated and impotent emerging after the election. I was happy, because that meant one fascist prick less to deal with.

Now Tony is bristling with power again, you can see him egging up the game and smile confidently. How that weasel must laugh at us, debating law and order as if it actually MEANT something.
He knows better; it's all up for grabs if you let go of all tradition and respect for human suffering, and joins the neocons in their agenda.

[lumpy]

81. Good post, thanks.

People who give the orders should be held responsible. It is usually the pawns/fodder who have to deal with the consequences.

[booksenkatz]

83. John Gibson will have to adjust his "five in the noggin" won't he? NT

[endarkenment]

103. A less drastic proposal

As the apologists for fascism have proclaimed that shooting innocent people is just the price we must pay for security etc. I have an (im)modest proposal. From now on nudity should be mandatory in all public places. Alternatively, and to accomodate inclement weather, transparent garments may be worn.

Now I realize that this is humorous, but I ask, quite seriously, would not this be a better policy than the current one, which policy results in blowing the brains out of detained and innocent suspects?

[LisaL]

119. Gee, we actually have winter here.

Going naked is not an option.

[endarkenment]

124. transparent garments

Seems to me a much better proposal than blowing the brains out of innocent commuters.

[High Plains]

197. I may want to blow my own brains out, though...

at least given the increasing weight of American commuters

[endarkenment]

216. lol

[daleo]

131. It may be no accident he was an electrician.

Supposedly, the address to this block of flats was connected to the previous bombings (found in one of the backpacks I think). If so, the police may have investigated the people in the flats and found out he was an electrician. Bombs require wiring, so the police could have jumped to the conclusion that he was the bomb builder. If there were orders to hit the bomb-builder, he may have been the victim of a police mis-identification. A similar thing happened to an innocent waiter in Lillehammer Norway, when the Israelis were assassinating the people involved in the Munich massacre.

[LisaL]

132. The only problem is, it appears they had no clue who he was.

[daleo]

133. I don't know how much they knew about the people in the flat

They may have known just enough to make a serious error in identification.

In the Lillehammer case, the Israeli agents decided the unfortunate waiter must have been connected to the Munich massacre because he was observed talking to someone else they suspected of involvement in the killings (at a public pool or sauna I think, purely an innocent conversation between strangers). They put two and two together, but came up with five.

I bring this up just to show that government hit squads have committed assassinations on extremely flimsy evidence in the past.

Naturally this is speculation. One hopes the inquest will clear up things.

[LisaL]

143. The problem is , it wasn't a flat. It was an apartment complex.

THe complex consisted of 8 flats. The guy walked out the communal door.
They had no clue who he was, but decided to follow him because he was supsicious looking.

[daleo]

160. One article said due to "his demeanor and colour"

Which is a chilling notion.

I know it was a complex of flats, and the police are admitting that they had very little to go on now, as far as their pursuit of this man is concerned.

I am just saying that they may have thought they knew more than they did. It seems doubtful that they would admit to this, as it would amount to admitting they sent out an assassination squad. That's probably still illegal in Britain. I am not saying it happened this way, just that it is a possibility.

[Karenina]

264. They had pictures and KNEW

the moment he walked out of his front door that he was NOT their suspect. :tinfoilhat: This may have been a trial balloon for public acceptance of thews new tactics they've been taught and the hit squad ASSUMED Jean was British/Pakistani. THAT was their MISTAKE. Had they been correct we'd be hearing a WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY.:tinfoilhat:

[mbperrin]

140. Why in the world is there such concern over these possible

suicide attacks? In the history of the earth, apparently fewer than 60 people have been killed by suicide bombers in England and Wales, yet 514,250 total deaths in 2004 were led by 37% being circulatory disease. That's 200,000 people, FOUR THOUSAND per week, being killed by an eminently solvable disease. Yet this receives little or no publicity, and instead, this exquisitely rare form of death by bomber takes front and center, requiring the expenditure of many millions, perhaps billions, over time, when it's not even statistically significant. They're killing people over a dot in statistics, while ignoring the biggest killer in the country.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/hsq0505.pdf

All part of the "it's more fun to shoot people and run around in cloak and dagger fashion than to do BORING medical research" line of thought, and it's pervasive for most of history most everywhere.

But PT Barnum was right about the average intelligence of the general public....

[AuntieM1957]

148. Woah, a real flame war

AuntieM's spent the last several days mighty unhappy over the UK incident.

Fearing for the future of us all, now that it's open season on all of us.

Far too many people seem willing to give up hard fought liberties for the sake of illusory security.


But perhaps I've been looking at this all wrong.

Let's arm everyone. From age 12 up, a handgun for everyone on the planet. Only the strong will survive. Then, no worries about AIDS, food shortage, pollution, overcrowding.

It's a brilliant solution - the ultimate solution, don't you agree?

:sarcasm:
just in case you thought I was serious.

[PassingFair]

179. You're talkin mighty....

suspicious-like, little lady...better not be thinkin of takin no buses...

:sarcasm:

[Matilda]

190. Total over-reaction by the police.

It was one huge stuff-up from the beginning. IF they genuinely
thought he was a terrorist, they should have stopped him before
he got to the platform.

And once they had him pinned to the ground, IF they genuinely thought
he was a terrorist, didn't it occur to him they might have learned
more by keeping him alive and questioning him?

Sorry, but eight bullets IMO is an execution. These guys were jumpy
and over-reacted. And those who persist in defending their actions
are ignoring the fact that next week it could happen to them.

Especially if their skin looks a bit dark.

[bassman79]

194. Guy was supposed ot be a patsy but backed out

That's my hunch

[Bridget Burke]

213. Why on earth would a Brazilian electrician be a "patsy" for terrorists?

Please explain.

[ngGale]

201. Witness says, no verbal warning was given...

---snipped---

Another family member said that he had recently been attacked and robbed in that area by a gang of young white men and thought the plain-clothes officers were muggers.

By far the most controversial claim comes from a number of witnesses who have cast doubt on police statements that they shouted a warning or identified themselves to the suspect before opening fire.

Lee Ruston, 32, who was on the platform, said that he did not hear any of the three shout “police” or anything like it. Mr Ruston, a construction company director, said that he saw two of the officers put on their blue baseball caps marked “police” but that the frightened electrician could not have seen that happen because he had his back to the officers and was running with his head down.

Less than a minute later Mr Menezes was pinned to the floor of the carriage by two men while a third officer fired five shots into the base of his skull.

Again, Mr Ruston says that no verbal warning was given.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707480,00.html

[endarkenment]

220. So far

almost everything in the original police account of the incident has turned out to be bullshit.

It was clear to me that if your policy is to blow the brains out of suspect suicide bombers so that they do not have a chance to detonate themselves, you do not warn the suicide bomber suspect to surrender. Duh.

I am still waiting for the pictures of this supposedly inappropriately bulky overcoat that was reported to be the other grounds for suspicion.

As far as I can tell, de Menezes, by walking out the wrong door and being not quite white enough, was a dead man.

[brainshrub]

221. At least Blair apologized for the death.

Our POTUS is such a small man, he doesn't admit when his people have made a mistake.

[LisaL]

253. Bush doesn't think he makes mistakes, but that is a whole another

story.

[Mairead]

255. There's a big disconnect between the police claims and their actions

(I only read through the first half of the responses, so someone else might already have made this point)

When Menezes left his apartment block, the cops decided to follow him, presumably to see whether he would meet up with someone else. They followed him through his bus trip, and into the tube station. They didn't clear people out of his path or secure the area he was heading into, nor did they attempt to stop or divert him. And it wasn't for want of personnel: they had 30 DCs assigned to the detail--plenty enough to completely do the job.

That course of action suggests strongly that they didn't for a moment suspect him of having a bomb. Because for least harm, bombs are best exploded in open territory; if detonated in enclosed space, they tend to catastrophically disrupt the enclosure.

So the SOP would have been to immediately clear people out of his path and stop him in the street well before the bus trip, giving him a choice between surrendering or detonating. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by following a prospective suicide bomber. They're not convivial people at that point in their lives; they aren't going to lead the police to a convention of other armed suicide bombers all standing around showing off their plastique and batteries while they toast their forthcoming martyrdom with grape juice.

Which means that the cops' later claim is simply incredible, that they thought him a possible bomber who must be executed on the spot. If they really thought he needed to be executed on the spot, then 'the spot' was many minutes earlier and about 2k away.

[endarkenment]

260. thank you for getting it.

Good analysis.

[oscarmitre]

285. Wrong again

When Menezes left his apartment block, the cops decided to follow him, presumably to see whether he would meet up with someone else. They followed him through his bus trip, and into the tube station. They didn't clear people out of his path or secure the area he was heading into, nor did they attempt to stop or divert him. And it wasn't for want of personnel: they had 30 DCs assigned to the detail--plenty enough to completely do the job.

They didn't clear people out of his path or secure the area he was heading into, nor did they attempt to stop or divert him

And why was that? Could it have been that they had insufficient cause to stop him?

That course of action suggests strongly that they didn't for a moment suspect him of having a bomb. Because for least harm, bombs are best exploded in open territory; if detonated in enclosed space, they tend to catastrophically disrupt the enclosure.

No, it suggests they didn’t have a good reason for stopping him.


So the SOP would have been to immediately clear people out of his path and stop him in the street well before the bus trip, giving him a choice between surrendering or detonating. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by following a prospective suicide bomber. They're not convivial people at that point in their lives; they aren't going to lead the police to a convention of other armed suicide bombers all standing around showing off their plastique and batteries while they toast their forthcoming martyrdom with grape juice.

Okay so there is a suspected bomber on the footpath. The police swing into action and begin to clear people out of his path and…….he detonates while he still can, while there are people in the vicinity being directed away by the police. Reality check. Committed suicide bombers don’t surrender, they blow themselves up.

Which means that the cops' later claim is simply incredible, that they thought him a possible bomber who must be executed on the spot. If they really thought he needed to be executed on the spot, then 'the spot' was many minutes earlier and about 2k away.

See my previous remarks.

[WinkyDink]

256. So, to carry the "so what?" argument to its conclusion,

why not shoot everybody, just to be on the safe side? SOMEBODY MIGHT be a bomber, you know.

[Freddie Stubbs]

258. If we can learn one lesson from this...

...don't run from the police in the UK.

[endarkenment]

259. there was no indication that they were police

Please don't buy into the bullshit.

[Tom Bombadil]

265. You clearly don't understand the UK

or London. Armed racists do not chase people into busy tube stations in broad daylight. It simply does not happen. Have you ever lived in Britain or does everything you know stem from articles you read on the internet? Guns are extremely difficult to get hold of and anyone in their right mind, given the current circumstances, would've known they were armed police.

[endarkenment]

268. actually my brother lives in London.

I did not say that armed racists chased people into busy tube stations. I said that racism played a part in deciding that de Menezes was a suicide bomber.

He most certainly was chased into a busy tube station by armed men who almost cerainly did not identify themselves as police. Eyewitness accounts confirm this. A moments reflection makes it rather obvious that they were not going to warn a person that they thought was a suicide bomber that they were about to arrest him. Of course, as we now know, the orders were and are not to arrest suicide bomber suspects, the orders are to do exactly what they did to de Menezes: shoot them in the head until dead. The authorities in England are quite clear about this: de Menezes was the wrong guy, ooops sorry about that, nothing wrong with the policy, more to follow.

de Menezes was from Brazil, where guns are rather prevalent and where armed robbery is rather common. Perhaps you have never lived in Brazil, or maybe you get all your information by passively digesting the bullshit spew put out by the authorities.

de Menezes was in his right mind, was not inappropriately dressed and was on his way to work when he stepped out of the wrong door and was mistaken for a pakistani suicide bomber and subsequently executed.

I'm sure the de Menezes family is comforted by the knowledge that so many people out their blame the victim of this tragedy for what happened rather than the people who did it and the government that authorized it.

[Sterling]

280. So anyone with a gun in plain clothes in the UK is a cop?

Is that really what you are trying to say? Guns are hard to come by in NYC these days yet if a person in plain clothes with a gun was chasing me I would not assume it was a cop.

[Nihil]

281. What would you do then?

> yet if a person in plain clothes with a gun was chasing me I would
> not assume it was a cop.

So you'd just turn your back on him? Nice clear shot while you don't
know whether he's chasing, aiming, signalling a partner or what?

You'd run? Really? In the same situation as described for this event?

We're not talking dodgy areas at midnight here. This is broad daylight.
This is a fairly major road. This is a public area with members of the
public around.

Are you really saying that with no other reason you would draw
attention to yourself, give a good reason to any cop to chase you and
hope that you were fit enough to outrun not just the gunman but any
bullets that may be fired?

If so, I think I can understand some of your earlier posts.

[Sterling]

286. If someone pulled a gun on me I would run as fast as I could.

Unless I was in close quarters with them and then I would fight. I would never comply with someone with a gun unless they were clearly a cop.

You keep saying "cop" but these guys were not in uniform so I am not sure why you keep falling back on that position, it seems like a waste of your time. You certainly are3 not making any headway with it.

[Tom Bombadil]

282. "So anyone with a gun in plain clothes in the UK is a cop?"

Yes. At a busy tube station in broad daylight, in front of numerous witnesses and CCTV cameras, I would assume it was a policeman.

Especially given the recent circumstances in London; a city on heightened alert, the day after 4 would be bombers failed to explode bombs and were still on the loose. Every Londoner I know is fully aware that uniformed and non-uniformed armed police are scouring the city doing their levelled best to prevent a repeat of 7th July.

Too damn right I would assume they were police and the last thing I would ever do is turn my back on them and run.

[Sterling]

288. Well you can assume all you want but......

The fact is they were not identified as cops. I would not stop for anyone with a gun who was threatening me. Putting yourself at the mercy of an armed person is not a wise move.

Given the circumstances in London I would be more inclined to flee from that kind of danger.

[BrightKnight]

266. Darwin award nomination

Should he be nominated for a Darwin award? It is difficult to believe that anyone could be stupid enough to do what he did. Even his parents understand and appreciate the terrorist threat. It is impossible to believe that he did not.

He grew up in a very dangerous Brazilian slum. Living in content fear can make you unsettled. He was probably afraid of being deported.

[endarkenment]

269. another vote for blame the victim

Great. For sure don't blame the policy that caused this to happen.

[Sterling]

279. I don't think you bothered reading any details of this story.

Sad.

[ConfuZed]

270. *KICK*

:kick:

[soda]

289. who says?

he was running?the same people who said at first he was definitely linked to the terrorists (ian blair),that he was wearing a heavy jacket,now a jean jacket,that he jumped the ticket barrier,now that he had a ticket oh by the way a lot of people run to catch a train if there late