Punishment for "looking like a terrorist" -- Five shots to the head

[bemildred]

If you happen to be Brazilian or a Sikh or Portuguese or some other swarthy, dark-haired culture, don't enter the London subway systems looking suspicious. As far as police are concerned, your suspiciousness carries with it the death penalty. You can't be allowed to trigger a hidden bomb, even if you don't have a bomb. Your looks combined with the terror in the hearts of the police and the citizenry means you will be shot and killed, and then it can be determined if you are a real threat. Or the police will shrug and say, "Oops. Sorry."

If you see the police checking you out, you have to make an instantaneous decision. If you stay put, and they think you may have a bomb, say your prayers and prepare to die. If you run, you had damn sure better run fast and not get caught and not get shot. If they catch you, you will be dead very quickly. If you run, you had better run very fast and do whatever it takes to escape. Learn all the escape routes of the subway system. Don't carry explosives to let you pass through locked doors, because those will be used as evidence that you are a terrorist. Just remember that if you run, you will either escape and live or be caught and die.

It is just a matter of time before the same principle is true in New York and other world cities. Of course, if a person who looks like actor Edward Norton ever detonates a bomb and the "every-man" looks is associated with terrorists, then not only swarthy, dark-haired men will be targeted by police, but all of us will be at risk.

Whoever thought that riding the subway would be a life-or-death propositions each time out! Life in the Age of Terrorism will progress from bad to worse and eventually the whole world will know what terror is like, either from exposure to terrorists or to anti-terrorists. It will all blend together until no one feels safe.

Media Monitors

[skooooo]

1. Don't jump over turnstiles..

...and you might be okay.

[bemildred]

2. Don't go to Britain, even safer. nt

[Karenina]

7. Guess what, B!

The guy had a ticket!!! One of those transit pass thingies where you pay by the month. He prolly thought he'd be safe if he could just get to the train...

What kind swat team idjits can't tell a South American from a Brit of "Asian" descent? Shall I GO THERE??? :cry::cry::cry:

[Vitruvius]

8. All people of color look alike to these police-state enforcers.

Both in England and in the US. Even in NYC -- e.g. Mr. Diallo and so many others.

[Karenina]

19. And GUESS WHAT!

They even KNEW he wasn't the droid they sought...

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

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.

ALL dem nigras carry knives, ya know!!! :sarcasm:

[bemildred]

10. What kind of democracy is it when the people are the enemy?

Maybe if the government stopped thinking of its job as screwing the people, things would be less "explosive".

(Let's not get started on the cops.)

[barb162]

13. people are the enemy?

I thought terrorist people are the enemy. Big difference.

[bemildred]

15. Who is the dead guy here?

Hint: he's not a terrorist.
If he's not the enemy, then not being the enemy doesn't seem to do you much good.,

[barb162]

17. The dead guy is a person who should have stopped

when the cops told him to stop. I suspect the same actions would have gotten him killed in Rio de Janeiro if they had just had a string of bombings.

[bemildred]

20. Clearly he should have stopped, he's dead.

The question was: should he be dead?

You seem to think having cops roaming the street cluelessly killing unarmed civilians in panic because they run prevents terrorism. I think not. I think it's incompetent and a crime.

[barb162]

33. Of course he shouldn't be dead.

And please don't put words in my mouth re your second paragraph. You really are out of line.

[bemildred]

38. I put NO words in your mouth, and I was not out of line.

If he should not be dead, than the cops should not have shot him.
QED.

Edit: if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[barb162]

40. This is attributed to me by you which is really ridiculous

because I don't think this at all: "...seem to think having cops roaming the street cluelessly killing..."

Gee, this is the first time I ever knew I wanted cops NOT to be law enforcers and to NOT be acting within the law and to NOT protect the population.

[bemildred]

42. That is not putting words in your mouth.

Putting words in your mouth implies that I quoted you or said that you said something; "seem to think" is not enough. I will admit it's a bit aggressive, but you are not a shrinking violet yourself.

That is my interpretation of what happened in London, and you seem to think that what happened in London is somehow OK or normal or just bad luck or something of the sort. I don't consider what happened in London to be law enforcement or protecting anyone. It was an extra-legal summary execution with no due process, and it protected nobody. The cops freaked out.

I was hoping to get you to explain your position better, but all I hear is they were cops and we have to trust them, or something like that. And I don't trust cops anymore than anybody else I meet on the street, maybe less. Cops tend to think they are above the law, expediency rules, the end justifies the means. I don't like that at all.

FWIW, my interpretation appears to me to be the kindest you can arrive at, the alternative (which you can find some people here discussing) is that they killed an innocent guy deliberately.

Maybe we should just agree to disagree, I don't think we are going to convince each other.

[barb162]

44. Figuratively speaking,

not literally, you were putting words in my mouth.

I think the cops were trying to do a good job and they made a horrible mistake. I think the man was shot because of four simultaneous factors: he had a heavy jacket inappropriate for the weather that day, he was dark, he was from the apt. house being surveilled and he didn't stop when they told him. There may have been additional factors of which I am unaware. I think if any one of those four things were not present, he wouldn't be dead. If he had no jacket (and clearly no hidden bombs) but he ran, I don't think he'd be dead. I believe if he had not run, he'd still be alive and certainly if he had blonde hair he'd still be alive. The same police force didn't kill a man with a pouch in front of 10 Downing. I think the police did not wantonly kill an innocent man...I think the combination of factors mentioned above caused the police to act as they did and they didn't want another tube bombing. I think the London police are caught between a rock and hard place.
----------

As an aside,
A person who was qite drunk out of his head was killed by the police not far from where I live in a place which has never had a police shooting of a resident in 150 years. The guy was waving a gun outside his house. The police were called and they told him to drop it. He refused. They told him again. He refused. As he was waving it around and yelling incoherently or whatever, at some point he aimed it at one of the cops or the cop thought he aimed it and the cop shot him. He died. He was never in trouble with the law, not even traffic tickets. If he had just dropped the gun when the cops told him to he would have spent some time in jail but still be alive. Now he's dead. Someone could say, well, did he have the trigger cockedor why didn't they aim for a leg? Well, the cops are trained not to worry about that...you do what they tell you to do and the last thing you do is point a gun at a cop after they tell you to drop it.

These stories are always tragic. Whatever motivated this Brazilian man to run is beyond me but I believe he would be alive today and released by the cops from questioning the same day if he had stopped.

Yes, we should agree to disagree.

[bemildred]

48. I think he was shot because they shot him when they should not.

And I don't accept any of the excuses being given. He did NOTHING that he did not have a perfect right to do in the circumstances, and I really don't care what "caused the police to act as they did" in any sense of exonerating them for committing this crime.

Edit: FWIW, I don't have a problem with drunks with guns getting killed sometimes.

[Redstone]

25. Aha. So now the punishment for evading arrest has been upped

to summary execution.

I see.

Redstone

[barb162]

34. No. And you don't see,

apparently, that it was a horrible mistake.

[cliss]

14. You got that right.

I mentioned in another post that several friends of mine have changed their plans to go to England. I personally will not set foot in that place until Blair goes, or their policies have changed.

"England is now a war zone".

Think about it. The most damaging part about war, is that the tourists flee. Tourists and their money. Many countries live off of tourism. Without it, they'd be bankrupt.

I don't know about England, but for the time being, I'm going to urge my friends to "Boycott England".

[mike_c]

3. sure-- it was all his fault....

That's the ticket.

[skooooo]

4. I didn't say that...

...but it was partially his fault, imo. Sad but true.

[Vitruvius]

9. Those cops weren't in uniform. Of course he ran -- you'd run too if it

looked like a gang of big galoots were about to mug you. And for that, he was wrestled to the ground and shot in the head five times.

[stray cat]

5. Not an excuse but "acting like a terrorist after a bombing"

I might have freaked out and done the same but our police have made similar accidents. I remember an incident where a person pulled a wallet out of his pocket when confronted by police who also got killed. When I get pulled over for a traffic stop I keep my hands visible and don't jump out and look aggressive. It is an unpredictable situation that can lead to tragedy very quickly if caution isn't evident on both sides.

[bemildred]

6. I understand the argument you are making, Sir, but

does it not strike you as odd that we have random citizens being killed by the parties whose job is supposedly to "protect" them? Who is it really that the police protect, and from what? Clearly it was not this Brazilian fellow, or from terrorism.

[barb162]

12. When a cop tells you to stop and you don't....

I bet the same thing would happen in Brazil ( and many other countries) if there had just been a series of terrorist bombings.


below from BBC news7/24/05:
1: Jean Charles de Menezes leaves a house under surveillance and arrives at Stockwell station
2: Witnesses say he vaults the automatic ticket barriers and heads for the platforms
3: He then ran down an escalator after being approached by up to 20 plain-clothed police officers and tried to board a train
4: He apparently refuses to obey police instructions and after running onto a northbound Northern line train, he is shot dead

[bemildred]

16. I concur.

It sounds like the events of the Brazilian's killing are already getting "embellished":

"Witnesses say", "up to 20", "apparently refuses to obey", and
"shot dead" instead of "tackled by several police and shot in the head five times with a Glock".

[barb162]

18. I don't know if things are getting embellished or not

but I won't bash the cops under the circumstances of two sets of terrorists bombings killing dozens of people over the last few weeks. I suspect there is not a city on this planet, again, including in Brazil, where the police would have acted differently if their city had some large bombings. I suspect some of these same police were picking pieces of flesh and body parts off the tubes over the last few weeks.

[bemildred]

21. Terrorist bombings do not give police carte blanche to run down and kill

random civilians, this was just bonehead stupid, and there is no number of terrorist bombings that makes this sort of incompetence OK.

[barb162]

22. I think it was not random and that the man

was exhibiting suspicious behavior at the least. Whatever it was that made this man decide to run instead of stop...well, we wouldn't be discussing it now if he had stopped.

[bemildred]

23. The cops admit he had no connection to terrorism. Zippo.

So if it was not random, maybe it was racist profiling instead. Or some other clueless crap.

It's true he had a coat on, but hey, he was Brazilian and he's in the UK. And he had a bad visa, but the cops sure didn't kill him for that, they didn't know anything about that. And he ran, but I'd run from a bunch of aggressive, rattled guys with guns dressed as civilians in the subway too, especially if there had been recent terrorist activity.

[barb162]

24. We simply don't know, we don't K-N-O-W

There were at least 4 or 5 things, the jacket, the house he came from, the darkish skin and he ran/jumped a turnstyle and they told him to stop. Maybe there were even more things we don't know.

How many things does a cop need to shoot first? Were they right in the end? No. This sort of reminds me of the incidents where a person looks like they are pulling something out of their jacket and the cop shoots the person. Later it is found they were pulling out a pack of cigarettes or whatever but the cop thinks it's a gun. The cop shoots. Does the cop want to kill that person? No. This sort of thing happens over and over again in this country.

You know when a cop tells a person to stand there with their hands up and the person reaches into a pocket. Most likely that person will get shot. Someone can always say, "AHA, police brutality, racism, etc" but I think why the fuck did the person put their hand in their jacket? And I bet the cops are thinking why the fuck did the person do that, I had to shoot him.

[Matilda]

27. I don't think it's entirely racism,

as much as sheer stupidity. This was such a huge stuff-up. It
appears the cops didn't know who or what they were looking for at
all.

And if they thought he might know something, why didn't they just
arrest him and question him? He was pinned to the ground, couldn't
move, he wasn't going anywhere and nor could he detonate a bomb if
he had one.

Those who defend the police action on the grounds that he MIGHT have
been a terrorist are forgetting a very important lesson of history -
Today it's THEM, tomorrow it could be US. We should never, ever,
let the police or the military have too much power.

And I'm saying this in a country whose leaders are even now talking
about doing just that. Now that scares me more than the terrorists
do.

[bemildred]

28. Either a great deal of stupid or something "funny" going on.

The thing that annoys me is they don't seem to want to just:

1.) Apologize profusely and sincerely ("We fucked up, we are very sorry.")
2.) Offer suitable compensation.
3. Shut the fuck up.

And that appears to me to be the only honorable course here.

[rasputin1952]

29. Unless there is an obvious, immediate threat, the use of deadly force

is a last resort.

So this individual had no connection to terrorist activities, why was he shot in the head? A shot to the leg or butt would have sufficed if he could not be brought to a state of compliance. Then there is the question of FIVE shots to the head...:wtf: It seems as though ONE would have sufficed.

I have no idea why this man did not stop...and now, neither will anyone else. You compel a person that is a suspect to a state of compliance so that you can glean information as to why the individual was doing what they were doing...once killed, the opportunity to gain information is lost.

This was mishandled from the beginning, and if '20 plainclothes officers' can't subdue a single suspect ...they are in some pretty sad shape.

[barb162]

26. I don't think it is "racist"

when the terrorists happen to come from certain ethnic groups in certain parts of the world and are of a certain religion. It is pretty obvious you wouldn't be looking for a person with blonde hair and light blue eyes when looking for 9-11 connected suspects nor would you be looking for Episcopalians. Is that racist, is that anti-Moslem?
This man unfortunately was dark-skinned and doing a number of actions that caused the cops to want to stop him. If cops told me to stop, I would freeze in my tracks and everyone I know would do the same thing. But then again I grew up in Chicago and you do what the cops tell you to do OR ELSE.

[Karenina]

30. He was NOT "dark-skinned"

He was NOT Muslim. Those surveilling him KNEW he was NOT the droid they sought when he walked out of his front door. He was allowed to board a bus. A hit squad had ALREADY been deployed at the train station. His friends say his "uniform" jacket was Levi's denim. It's claimed he jumped the turnstile although he was the proud owner of a train pass. It's claimed his visa was expired although he'd recently returned from Brazil. The "police" were NOT in uniform. Hate crimes are up 500% and he'd recently been assaulted.

TPTB wanted to "test" the British population's acceptance of summary executions of young, male British-Pakistanis using their newly acquired Israeli training but failed to teach their thugs how to properly identify one.

[bemildred]

32. Thanks. I became tired of banging my head on the wall.

:banghead::banghead:

[barb162]

35. I think the investigators will find out the various claims

about the man's death. Denin jacket? Maybe. I saw a witness on TV being interviewed who said he had a really heavy jacket totally inappropriate for the warmish weather London was having. There seems to be a bunch of stories, much opinion, much dispute, even as to the clothing.

[element23]

31. you suspect?

wow that's freeper logic. sorry, but true.

It's amazing to me how some people are so quick to blame the victim in this summary execution.

Please try to remember that the cops were plains-clothed and the guy, as an immigrant, after the bombings, was probably more afraid of roaming soccer hooligans than the cops.

[barb162]

36. Please tell me which city police in which country that you believe

would act differently under similar or same circumstances. Please don't tell me about freeper logic or what was possibly going on in the guy's head, unless you're a mindreader of someone you never met, okay?

[bemildred]

39. How many other instances of citizens being tackled and shot in the head

by a gang of thugs cops are there? You seem to think this is an ordinary occurrence, normal police work, just bad luck, etc.

[barb162]

41. I have no idea how often this happens in London

Here is a letter to BBC News on the shooting:

"True it's a complete tragedy. But it's clear you don't run from the police. You can only look at the incident outside 10 Downing Street last week with the 'suspect' who had a rucksack. He cooperated and was not shot. What we don't know is what was said by the police. Perhaps they should have cornered him instead of chasing cat and mouse.
Luc, London, UK"

Here's another of your odd comments: "...seem to think this is an ordinary occurrence..."
Really? I didn't know I thought this was an ordinary occurrence. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

[bemildred]

43. You implied in post #36

that police anywhere anytime would do the same:

"Please tell me which city police in which country that you believe would act differently under similar or same circumstances"

I'm asking you to back that up with examples.

Edit: post #

[Matilda]

46. Unfortunately, such incidents do happen in this country.

NSW and Victoria in particular have become rather notorious for the
frequency in which police shoot first and ask questions afterwards.

This is what bothers me - I think governments are too quick to call
on police to "tighten security" against their own citizens, and it
doesn't take much for police to go over the top. It takes a
particular mindset to become a cop, and generally it tends to be
very right-wing and authoritarian.

[bemildred]

47. Eh, I hear what you are saying, I live in LA, we have lots of "incidents".

But, I don't believe I've EVER read of something like this, on this flimsy a pretext. Although it's true you could get close. But usually there is some overt "contempt of cop" or something, waving a gun, something. There is no fig leaf here, nothing. Just he ran, we killed him.

[element23]

45. don't mean to sound like a dick

but I believe it was you that was mindreading the cop.

I was just trying to explain the typical reaction by a recent immigrant when confronted with what he could have construed to be an angry mob.

I was trying to show you another perspective that you may not have noticed. You seem pretty dead set on the freeper/lgf mantra that he got what was coming because he didn't do what you would do in that situation.

Some immigrants and minorities react differently than you would when confronted by angry people, cops or non-cops, because, let's face it - are not treated the same way that white residents are. Often times they are guilty until found innocent. I'm not saying you feel that way, or that it is common - but it happens - a lot. This incident is proof of that.

and in which country would the police act differently? Geez - all of them. Just yesterday in NYC they thought there was suicide bombers on a tour bus. No blodshed, thank god.

[barb162]

11. I agree

[charmsicle]

37. They screwed up, no two ways about it. But I'll tell you something:

I was pretty impressed by how quickly they fessed up. The police/administration in this country would be covering it up like nobody's business. You wouldn't realize that something was amiss until you say his crying mother on the screen.
There's no excuse for it. And the man is DEAD, basically because he was wearing an overcoat in July and lived in the wrong apartment building. The situation is completely f-ed up and irreversible, but at least the police aren't saying otherwise.