The London cops who killed Menezes aren't guilty.

[lockdown]

On the London shooting, I think it's important not to blame the officers involved in this tragedy, they were following established guidelines. As with torture of detainees the real responsibility lies higher up.

A shoot to kill policy has been instituted for even suspected suicide bombers, based mainly on Israeli tactics. As I understand it, the officers involved are part of a 24-hour response unit that would only be called out on an intelligence based threat, with the sole function of killing suicide bombers. From that, I wouldn't be surprised if all they knew was that the suspect WAS a suicide bomber. It wasn't their job to assess the intelligence or detain the suspect, sounds like the fact they'd been called out in itself meant the target was a suspected suicide bomber and their job was to kill him. All they are guilty of is putting themselves in danger and doing their job.

There is an intelligence fuck-up here that will be investigated, but regardless of that the policy of shooting even suspected bombers dead cannot be accepted. There needs to be solid evidence or obvious intent.

The ex-police commissioner who implemented it, John Stevens, has long echoed Blair's rhetoric on "the war on terror", talking of the "unique evil" we face and how we need to wake up and society will never be the same. People like him and Blair, who want to fight a war on our behalf and whose solutions only exacerbate the problem, they should be held accountable for the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.

[Wetzelbill]

1. I'd be pretty jumpy I know that

then again, I'm not trained to use a gun. At least they are supposed to be.

[EFerrari]

2. If the gun was in my hand and I pulled the trigger,

I'd be guilty.

I understand, (I hope) your point. But as long as we allow ourselves to be manipulated by fright or by policy, we ARE complicit. Sadly.

[lockdown]

15. I get what you're saying I think,

they accepted the policy of shooting even suspects dead and did the deed, but I can accept the need for lethal response to a known threat and can't condemn someone just for being prepared to take on that responsibility. They'll probably be made scapegoats, but they aren't responsible for the policy and probably accepted it in good faith, believing they were doing the right thing, and they've been let down by the people giving them their orders. I'm sure they'll suffer terrible guilt, knowing they've shot an innocent man dead, and I'll accept they share some responsibility, but it's not right to let them twist in the wind and take the brunt of the blame.

[EFerrari]

46. Agree. That lies with Blair and Bush.

I'm glad we can't see souls because looking at either of those would probably kill you.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. Maybe if we ask the terrorist nicely to stop bombing the tube...

...they will stop. Then everything will be happy in our new Utopia. Yay.

[dutchdemocrat]

4. Maybe

That's about as bad as saying we should shoot all people of colour if we think they are terrorists. Tough call, but a good lesson learned because this guy happens to be Brazilian.

I think the cops were trigger happy. It's going to go the same way as Northern Island if they are not careful.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. Umm... no.

I take it you're not a frequent tube rider. If someone is running from the police, and the police think he has a bomb and intends to detonate it, what would you have them do? Explain that to me. I want to hear your ideas for how you address the issue of a suspected suicide bomber running from the police in a tube station or on a train. Give me a reasonable course of action that doesn't involve shooting him, and I'll happily support it. However, unless you've got an good idea of what you'd say to the families of the vicitims of a suicide bomber who was allowed to detonate his explosives because the police have a do-not-shoot order, I don't care what you have to say.

[DistressedAmerican]

16. And You Are Ridning The Tube And A Man Not Dressed As A Cop

whips out a gun the day after a second attack on the tube and this guy deserves shot because he freaked and ran. I would be dead this morning too.

There is no excusing this action. I hope the guys family sues the shit out of the entire city.

I can't believe you are defending this...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. Again, give me a solution.

The police have someone who they believe is a suicide bomber on the tube. What do YOU think we should do? Place yourself on a tube train, on a line that's been hit twice by suicide bombers (or would-be suicide bombers) in as many weeks. What would you have the cops do?

>I can't believe you are defending this...

I'm not defending this. I'm defending the policy which says that you shoot suspected suicide bombers rather than allow them to detonate their bombs. I am on the fence with respect to the idea of using plainclothes police officers to do this, and I'd like very much to hear the Metropolitan Police's defence of this way of doing things, as I can only assume that they've got some reason for doing it this way. But I'd like to know why. You can sit at your computer and defend your moral high ground as long as you like. But understand that those of us who are threatened by this on a daily basis might not take kindly to your assertions of moral superiority.

[LisaL]

47. And if you decide to visit London, they might suspect you

are a suicide bomber.
Basically, they can shoot anyone they want, and get away with it.
And you approve of that.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

51. No I don't.

And you're intentionally misrepresenting my position and being willfully ingorant to the facts of the case at hand. There's no point even discussing your assertions as you've obviously not read my posts, or if you have read them you haven't comprehended any of what I'm trying to say. I hope it feels nice and sunny up in your ivory tower. Those who have to deal with this in a very real and personal way may chose not to defer to your moral superiority.

[marions ghost]

50. who's talking about a "do not shoot" order?

that would not seem logical in dealing with bombers. However in this case, there was apparently no need to kill the guy at point blank range WHILE he was restrained. It will probably be chalked up to bad judgment. A classic case of overkill. There's not much the cops can say in their defense, except it was a tragic mistake. I appreciate the honesty of that statement more than attempts to justify the behavior.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

55. There are many people here talking about a do-not-shoot order.

Their statements are usually terse, vitriolic statements of their moral superiority over whoever is arguing (as I am) that good policies can be implemented badly. I really think that's the case here, at least given the evidence at hand. But if you browse around some of the other threads on this topic, you'll see a great many people accusing the Met police of being rabid racist murderers. It's complete nonsense, and it comes from a total ignorance of UK policing tactics and policies.

[dutchdemocrat]

74. the coppers

Were plainclothes, so... he was in one of London's worst neighbourhoods with guy chasing him that were not in uniform. I'd run too.

Shooting someone in the head five times in this case was completely over the top. And yes, I rode the tube during the IRA bombings in the late eighties and early nineties when I lived in London. Funny how you could not differentiate ethnically in that case.

Tasers would work fine.

I don't really care to hear what you have to say either, because I see a brown Brazilian man, legally in London, working hard as an electrician with a padded jacket on (Brazilians usually find London quite cold) was shot in the head because he fit a RACIAL profile.

[EFerrari]

5. Maybe if we become less tolerant of hate speech

these kids wouldn't grow up thinking that suicide bombing is a good option.

Oops! I didn't mean to criticize my government. :sarcasm:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. The situation is very bad.

I am not convinced that plainclothes police officers with guns being on the tube is the best solution to this problem, given that the right-wingers have already started a hate campaign against Muslims in the UK. In that situation, how do you tell the cops from the nutjobs with guns?

[EFerrari]

40. I know.. And believe you're right, it is very bad.

One of my best friends just married a lovely Brit and resides in London.

I'm only thinking, by the time the hatred gets to the tube, it's too late. We have to notice and redress the hatred before then. This probably sounds silly. And, it may be.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

54. The solution, I think, is to be rational.

On the one hand we have radical clerics in London claiming that the suicide bombers are heros, and on the other hand we've got the wingnuts claiming that all muslims are terrorists. They're both trying to whip up a conflict, and I think the best solution is just to ignore the whole lot of them. Giving people a platform from which they can spew hate is decidedly not in the interests of your averate tube rider, who just wants to get from A to B without being vomited upon or blown up.

[lockdown]

6. Maybe if the police shoot enough innocent people,

it'll create even more suicide bombers willing to blow up the tube.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. False logic and nonsense.

There are more than enough people willing to do what's already been done regardless of the admittedly wrong actions of the metropolitan police.

And don't get me started on the police shooting innocent people. Americans have no right to give ANY country shit over its police shooting innocent people. Our own house is most definitely NOT in order.

[lockdown]

31. There's already hordes who want to kill us,

so who cares how many more we might create in our "war" against them. And I'm talking nonsense?

I'm not American btw.

[LisaL]

43. They can't stop the bombings, can they?

All they have managed to do is to shoot an innocent person in the head.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

57. We don't know what they've managed to do.

Not every failure or success is being reported in the media. It would be foolish to say that this is the only outcome of their investigation. We do know that arrests have been made, but we have no idea whether those arrested were involved in the bombings. To focus on this event to the exclusion of everything else is to take a very complicated situation and attempt to retroactively apply a moralistic filter to it without anywhere enough information.

[burythehatchet]

60. Maybe if the US and Britain stop trying to destroy the

frigging planet they will stop.

[MSgt213]

7. How do you know they were following established guidelines?

Has the investigation been concluded already? I also don't think you can just say it going to be the leadership's fault. While the leadership is responsibility to produce guidelines and make sure they are followed people carrying them out have to react without the benefit of studies and round-tables and make mistakes even when they know the rules.

[lockdown]

19. The guidelines have been publically admitted to,

search for "Operation Kratos" on Google News.

[MSgt213]

22. Are not publishing guidelines and actually following them different things

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I think knowing, having read what the guidelines are and even stating that you completely understand does not equate to following them.

[lockdown]

28. I don't know the details of course

and I am speculating, but officials say it was an intelligence-led Kratos operation, and from what is known about the guidelines and what happened at Stockwell, it does sound like they were adhering to the guidelines and doing what they were trained to do.

[MadHound]

8. Sorry friend, following order isn't an excuse

An innocent man was killed, tapped five times while lying prone, with a cop on top of him. It is wrong for a shoot to kill policy to be in effect, and it was wrong for the police to carry it out.

An innocent man was killed.

[ScamUSA.Com]

9. you musta missed the part where they already said charges would be filed

against the officers

true though, the responsibility probably does go higher up

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. Of course it goes higher up.

The higher-ups have no problem with putting law enforcement officers in impossible situations and then dealing out the blame when something goes wrong.

On the other hand, take the situation in the US. Every cop in the US has the authority to shoot whoever the hell he feels like shooting for whatever reason, and the consequences for the officers generally aren't that severe. The policy with respect to suspected suicide bombers in the UK is far more restrictive than the most stringent restrictions on your average beat cop in your average midwestern US town. As I was saying earlier, an innocent man being shot by the police in the US is barely even news. The fact that this is even being dealt with at all (as opposed to being ignored) is prima facia evidence that the UK police work to higher ethical standards, even if their higher-ups are still a bunch of fucking bastards.

[ScamUSA.Com]

20. I'm with ya.

and even if there are consequences, they're born by the lower downs.

Thats one of the main things that disgusted me with the abuse photos, the scapegoating using the average soldiers, rather than the higherups taking responsibility which I always thought was a main part of the military philosophy

[DistressedAmerican]

14. Total Bullshit! They And Those That Gave Them The Order Were Dead Wrong

And an innocent man has been killed.

I find ist a bit sickening that you'd even suggest these people should not be punished.

YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. PERIOD.

Preemptive strikes are not accepteble against countries or individuals.

[baby_mouse]

18. Wrong.

They had no option, their intelligence was wsa that thi man was suspected suicide bomber and had to judge the call.

He was running from people whom he knew were armed police, they DID identify themselves. From that point on the police could make no assumption other than the worst in order to protect the other innocent people on the Tube line.

It's awful, don't get me wrong. But the police, in this case, are not at fault.

Th only thing we can change is the atmosphere in which these events take place.

That is going to take time.

[DistressedAmerican]

24. And How Was This Guy's English? Did He Understand Them? Or Did

he see a guy not wearing a uniform pointing a gun at him and shouting the day after a terrorist attack?

Answer me that?

Bottom line this policy has now created a situation in which riders have to fear both the terrorists and the police. That is not a proper response.

[baby_mouse]

30. What I've heard is that he'd been living in England for 3 years.

I can only assume that in that time he would have learned what was meant by the word: "police." However, that is an assumption.

It is also an assumption that must be made by the police, as they can;t really be expected to learn how to recite "Stop, Police!" in 20 different languages. We must give the police some leeway to do their job or we might as well just paint targets over everything.

I'm sorry. I know it's awful, but really, you're wrong. We have to give the police some power to prevent the real terrorists from operating.

I do not believe that there is a comfortable one-size-fits-all policy that can be implemented here if you are assuming that the populace must retain the right to run away from the police after they've been TOLD that the people chasing them are police, in a political environment immediately after several terrorist attacks, and on the same public transport system that's just been a major target.

Please be aware that I am not trying to characterise this incident as some sort of crime on Menenzes behalf... I think he was frightened.

Do you see that the fear is the enemy? Had he trusted the police at the outset he might still be alive...

:cry:

[DistressedAmerican]

32. How Many Petty Criminals Flee The Police? Should We Open The

door to anyone being shot that does not stop when ordered (whethere they understand the order or not)?

I know plenty of latinos that have lived here for more than three years with whom I still communicate exclusively in spanish. Many people simply do not lear the language.

Bottom line this policy resulted in the death of an unarmed man and created fear in Londoners of both the terrorists and the policies of the police.

Now please tell me how you think this is an effective strategy. All results to date would argue to the contrary.

You just keep on blaming the victim in this case...

[baby_mouse]

33. It's only an effective strategy if it actually prevents bombing.

"Should We Open The door to anyone being shot that does not stop when ordered (whethere they understand the order or not)?"

Given that he was already under suspicion through domiciliary connections (which we don't know anything about, yet) and the police already had a clear picture of their mission, I think you're reacting to the opening of a door that isn't being opened. He was not suspected of petty crime and AFAIK this policy is not being aimed at petty criminals.

"I know plenty of latinos that have lived here for more than three years with whom I still communicate exclusively in spanish. Many people simply do not hear the language."

"Do they understand the word police?" etc. We're not going to get any closer to an answer, there. There has to a be a *reasonable* expectation of what the police can do.

"Bottom line this policy resulted in the death of an unarmed man and created fear in Londoners of both the terrorists and the policies of the police.

Now please tell me how you think this is an effective strategy. All results to date would argue to the contrary."

TO DATE is the hinge, there. *This is the first public acknowledgement of the policy.* Thus *I* cannot claim any special knowledge of its general efficacy, as you appear to be able to do.

Will your position change if in the future the police restrain a bomber and then struggle with him, thus detonating the bomb and killing 10 civilians?

"You just keep on blaming the victim in this case..."

:cry:

If he understood the instruction, he should have stopped.
If he didn't...and, this is dreadful...

It's *nobody's* fault...

Except, perhaps, those who seek to bring fear to the world.

Peace.

[DistressedAmerican]

35. Any Idea Why He Was Not Stopped Before Getting To The Station And Into

a crowd of people?

This is one of my biggest concerns about the whole thing. They reportedly followed him for approximately 2km from the apartment building to the station.

If they believed he had a bomb, I do not understand why they even let it get that far.

I know this is shifting gears. But, it really bothers me in this case. It is one of the reasons that I think those folks on the ground bear some responsibility.

If a guy comes out of a building and you think he is wearing a bomb, why would you let him walk 2km and enter a train station?

Any ideas on that? Sounds like they did a very poor job to me.

Oh yeah, and an innocent guy is dead.

[baby_mouse]

41. These are good questions

And I suspect many of the answers will surface over the next few days, however:

1. How would they know he was going to go a train station? Even from one block away, he could have been going anywhere.
2. PERHAPS THEY THOUGHT HE *MIGHT* BE INNOCENT. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THAT?
3. Perhaps their shifting to attack mode was primarily related to his response to the challenge which was, AFAIK when he came within a blast-radius of the station, although that's muddy to me, you might get the better of me on that.
4. If a guy comes out of a building and you think he is wearing a bomb you would follow him, presuming him to be innocent (as it is generally the preference of the police in this country to assume innocence before guilt especially in situations where very serious crimes might be averted at the cost of a human life) to where you suppose his intended target might be, balancing the possibilities of guilt and innocence until you can no longer take the risk that he might be guilty.

Then you say: "stop."

You seem to be saying that they should have stopped him immediately outside his own house. I do not see how this would have prevented his death given isomorphism between that scenario and the RL one, and if you start changing other factors we rapidly run into a discussion about an imaginary situation not a real one, which is potentially useful, but may not throw any further light on how we judge this tragedy.

Your last comment is hurtful. I am aware that an innocent man is dead as is the majority of the UK and your comment implies callousness on my behalf. I hope I have made it clear that I do not think he should have died.

I blame the fear itself, or potentially the policy, not the police officers at all and Menezes only if he ran while understanding that he was being pursued by the police. I hope you understand me.

[DistressedAmerican]

49. It May Not Have Prevented HIS Death. However, It Would Have Kept Others

safer.

If he was thought to have a bomb as you have been arguing, is is not better for the public saftey to presume guilt, at least enough to try and stop him before getting into the station.

He was followed for roughly 2km, not just around the block. They had plenty of time to make a take down move. If he had run, would it not be better to have him run outside the station rather than in it?

You seem to be arguing that the police should presume innocence up until the bomb is in a crowd at which point they should presume guilt and shoot to kill.

This does not make sense. Either you believe in the police determining guilt (enough to shoot the guy) or you do not (allow him to walk even though suspected of being armed with a bomb).

The actions of the police failed to stop what they believed to be a bomb from walking right into the station. I just do not see how that does ot deserve some accountability.

[LisaL]

59. Exactly.

And what is that business with plain clothes? Men in plain clothes chasing someone is not a good idea, considering that someone might think they were criminals trying to rob him.
Yet, Britain decided that it's fine for the plain clothed policemen to shoot people in the head on suspicion alone. Well, if was in London now, I would be more worried about being shot in the head by police then about being victim of terror. What exactly did the police accomplish in this case, except terrorizing poor British even more?

[baby_mouse]

62. It's a risk based policy.

Either you believe in the police determining guilt (enough to shoot the guy)

*Risk* of intent, not guilt he could only be guilty after the explosion were he bomber, and the police reaction was to his behavior after he'd started running away from them, not before.

You seem to be suggesting that they would know he was going to a train station. Entering the station and subsequent behavior to challenge was sufficient to engage the shoot to kill policy according to the Met Commissioner.

I have made a mistake in my previous post my talking about this in terms of innocence and guilt, really it's a matter of risk. The scenarios facing the police are 1. Shooting an innocent person and 2. Letting a suicide bomber killing more innocent people.

You seem to be arguing that the police should presume innocence up until the bomb is in a crowd at which point they should presume guilt and shoot to kill.

Now the police somehow telepathically know there is a bomb. They don't know whether there is a bomb or not, they only go on his behavior when he is challenged. Running away towards the tube line pretty much signed his death warrant.

What would you have had them do? And how would your recommendations prevent an ACTUAL suicide bombing?

As they followed him, they were not certain that he had a bomb, but his subsequent behavior to being followed, i.e. entering train station and running, once challenged, towards the train meant that the potential hazard was too great.

There are only three things you can do with risk.

You can accept the risk, which is what they were doing when the followed him.

You can transfer the risk, which they did when they called the armed police.

Or you can mitigate. Which they did, they shot him.

Hazard is different from risk. Risk is the likelood of losing something, hazard is what you actually lose.

Once he moved into the station, two things happened. Firstly the hazard increased, i.e. there were more people around him, and *this* would make the *risk* too great to defer mitigation. Also the RISK was increased because he might be able to get on a train with a bomb and escape into the underground.

[DistressedAmerican]

73. He Ran When They Tried To Stop Him. Why Not Stop Him Before

the station (or anywhere else)? Is carrying a bomb not a criminal offense? They do not need an explosion to effect an arrest. What are you missing here.

If there was cause to shoot as you argue, there was also plenty of cause to try and stop him before he entered a crowd. It does not matter of going to the station or out to lunch. If they think the guy has a bomb, why was he not stopped IMMEDIATELY?

WHY LET EITHER THE HAZZARD OR RISK INCREASE AT ALL???

Stop him and invesigate based on suspicion alone.

This answers nothing I'm talking about.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

42. Being that this is London...

Any Idea Why He Was Not Stopped Before Getting To The Station And Into a crowd of people?

He was most likely in a crowd of people *before* he got to the station. I have no idea why they let him get to that point, but obviously they screwed up. I will say, however, that if you are performing surveilance on someone, the inclination is towards discovering his habits, with whom he meets, etc. Perhaps the determination that he was suspected of carrying a bomb was not made until he went for the tube station. It's impossible to know, as we don't have a full chronology of what happened.

I know this is shifting gears. But, it really bothers me in this case. It is one of the reasons that I think those folks on the ground bear some responsibility.

They will most likely never work in law enforcement again. I think what we have here is an instance where a correct policy was implemented wrongly. The determination of who bears responsibility for this travesty is yet to be made.

Any ideas on that? Sounds like they did a very poor job to me.

Indeed they did. The important thing is to find out *why* rather than jumping to conclusions about the policy. Let me give you a theoretical example that, I think, proves that the *policy* at least at the highest level, is correct:

Police have been monitoring someone who is suspected of being a terrorist. He has been known to meet with terrorists and has been seen purchasing bomb-making materials. At 10:00 this morning, he is seen leaving the house of a suspected terrorist, and eludes the police. The British equivalent of an APB goes out that this guy may be planning to bomb a tube train, shopping centre, whatever. At 1:00 PM he is sighted in a tube station carrying a large backpack with wires trailing out of it and down his arm. He is acting fidgety and nervous.

You are a police officer. You approach this man, and identify yourself as a police officer. He runs. You now have a situation where someone who may very probably be a suicide bomber is attempting to avoid the police. If the police in this situation are hamstrung by not being able to stop him via any means necessary, it may mean that the lives of 50 or 100 people would be lost. I would suggest that in this particular circumstance, you would most likely agree that the police need to do whatever is necessary to stop this man. Correct? Because if you are willing to say that it is right for the police to shoot this man (who is running from them, who has been seen associating with terrorists, who is carrying a backpack with wires trailing down his arm) then what you are arguing against is *not* the policy of shooting potential suicide bombers, but the particular way in which the policy was implemented in the case of the innocent man who was shot. I, for one, do not want to unnecessarily prevent the police from doing their job in this circumstance. We do not know why he was suspected of being a terrorist. We do not know the details of why the police pursued him, or why they felt it necessary to put five bullets in his head while he was at least somewhat under their control. Those facts will come out, and will shed some light on why this tragedy occured. But to issue a blanket statement saying that police may not use lethal force to stop suspected suicide bombers is, I think, very wrong. As I said, we are looking at a bad implementation of what is essentially a correct policy.

As for giving the police the autority to be judge, jury, and executioner, I would suggest that the people who have been detonating bombs on the tube have already given themselves this authority, and the response must be made in terms of the threat that is presented.

At least, that's my take on it. I understand why you feel the way you do. I once felt the same way. But the reality of the situation here is clear. The bombers are not acting as normal criminals. If anything, there behaviour is akin to that of guerilla warriors, and they are attempting to bring their war to London. It is unfortunate that they cannot be stopped by normal means, but the fact remains that they will continue to carry out attacks, and a proper defence must be made. I'm open to suggestions on better ways of achieving this.

[Used and Abused]

53. don't forget, he was allowed to board a bus as well

PRIOR to going to the tube. Sure...the cops feared he had a bomb. I guess their reaction was delayed adrenaline at work?

[alarcojon]

63. Excellent point!

Suicide bombers HAVE been known to attack buses. Are tube riders more worthy of police protection than bus riders somehow?

[marions ghost]

58. exactly

this question must be answered. There is no reason to let this guy get all the way INTO the station if you think he's carrying a bomb. 2km should have been time to pick this guy up.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. It's possible that the area where he was challenged

was the best area to do so, apart from right outside the block of flats (which they'd be reluctant to do so, if they have it under surveillance for other people). On a street with buses, or at the bus stop, is quite likely to be crowded just after 9am. On the bus is definitely a dangerous place to confront someone, if you suspect they have a bomb. In the foyer of the tube station, on the other hand, it might have been uncrowded (most people will pass straight through to wait for a train), and it's definitely less crowded than the train itself. They may have thought "challenge him now, where we can be at a certain distance, and there's no civilian close to him". If that was what they did, then it had the problem that he had space to start to run.

We'll never know why he did - it's possible the police assumed a British reaction to being shouted at and guns pointed at you (I'd freeze, whether or not it was the police, and as far as I can tell, the other British people here tend to say the same thing), where a Brazilian might think running is the answer, when the people might not be police at all (certainly several North Americans here on DU have said they'd run).

Once the chase is on, the police would assume he had something important to hide - and the shooting becomes extremely likely, if they follow their training.

I'd be interested to know if the policeman who shot him knew the background (that is, all that was known was that he'd come from the block of flats under surveillance), or if he had been called in to 'stop a suspect', and that was all he knew. If the latter, then it's a communal failure by the police team, with bad decisions made earlier. If the former, then it's largely down to that policeman, and his reasoning doesn't look at all good.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

34. His family says...

...he spoke very good English.

>That is not a proper response.

Ok, I'm going to ask this again, because nobody has actually bothered to answer the question when it was posted before:

You suspect that someone on the tube is a suicide bomber who intends to detonate his bomb. Your intelligence on this person suggests this strongly. Maybe your intelligence is wrong, but maybe it isn't. What is your response in this situation? Explain to me how you would protect innocent tube riders from having their body parts splattered all over the floor, walls, and ceiling.

>Bottom line this policy has now created a situation in which riders
>have to fear both the terrorists and the police.

Hardly. If he hadn't run from the police, he'd be alive. The only question in my mind is whether plainclothes police officers are the best ones to do this job.

And no, if someone points a gun at you at point blank range, you do not run. If you run from a gun, you die. Period. Unless the holder of said gun is a bad, BAD marksman.

I'd also like to point out that by following standard US police procedures, they would've tried to shoot him *while he was running* in a crowded tube station and probably would have killed several innocent bystanders. Of course, that's par for the course for policing in the US.

[vogonjiltz]

21. The man shouldn't have run and jumped the turnstile...

good god he was acting the part. It is a shame but given the circumstances I can't think of what else could have been done. They can't let another bombing happen.

[DistressedAmerican]

29. First Are You Sure The Guy Understood English Well Enough

to understand the police?

Second, a hell of a lot of petty criminals flee when approached by the cops. A shoot to kill order puts the powers of judge jury and executioner in the hands of the police. Now if you have a sweatshirt in the summer and run from the cops because you have a bag of weed you deserve to be shot?

Do you support the Patriot Act too? After all a war is on and people at the top tell us that intelligence indicates that they need it.

There are clear reasons why that is simply unacceptable.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

36. Disagree...

>Second, a hell of a lot of petty criminals flee when approached by
>the cops.

I think a word here is necessary about the atmosphere in London at this time. Any petty criminal who chose to conduct his business on the tube right now would be full aware of the risks it carried. There is tension in the air, security is tight, and anybody with dark skin and a backpack is going to get frequent stares on the tube. This is a terrible state of affairs, but I've got to say that any criminal stupid enough to attempt to operate on the tube right now is heading for a Darwin award.

That said, it does not appear to be the case that this guy was a criminal.

>A shoot to kill order puts the powers of judge jury and executioner
>in the hands of the police.

If you'd like to subpoena a backpack with wires hanging out of it, by all means be my guest. I, on the other hand, would rather he was relieved of his package by any means necessary if he's seen to be defying the orders of the police.

>Do you support the Patriot Act too?

This is a far, far cry from the Patriot Act. This is a far more stringent policy than is practiced by the SMALLEST police departments in the US. The Patriot Act is an abomination because it does absolutely nothing to target terrorists and merely serves as an additional weapon for the government to perform espionage on its populace for any poorly-defined purpose said government can think up. What we have in London is a policy aimed specifically at people who may be in the process of commiting a terrorist act at that exact time. That is nothing like the Patriot Act at all.

[DistressedAmerican]

38. I Disagree With Your Acceptance Of All Of This. But, Lets Say You Are

right.


Since the OP deals with the culpability of the shooters, let me ask you this.

How effectively was this policy applied in this case?

A suspect is spotted coming out of a building under surveillance some 2km away from the tube station. He is wearing heavy clothing and a pack in summer and police believe he may have a bomb. If you are the police which do you do:

A) follow the suspect to the station and try to apprehend them right there in the middle of a crowd
OR
B) stop him as soon as possible and before he entered a crowd of people

Even stipulating that this policy is for the greater good (which I do not believe). Can you honestly say that those dealing with this suspect should have let it come to chasing a possibly bomb wielding suspect through a crowded underground? Or should it have been handled on the street or possibly right at the building he came out of? How many of those tube riders were put at risk by police who allowed a many they believed to be carrying a bomb into the station in the first place?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

48. How effectively was this policy applied in this case?

I suspect that it was applied poorly, thought it's difficult to tell without all the facts. I will say, however, that your entire post is dealing with a wrong-headed implementation of the policy, rather than the rightness or wrongness of the policy itself. It is my position that good policies can be implemented poorly, ath that this is probably an example of a good policy with the wrong implementation. I've just replied to another of your posts with a scenario which, I think, justifies this policy, and I'm interested to hear your respose. I understand and respect your position in this matter, and I am glad that we are able to discuss this without resorting to the name-calling and willful ignorance that has been widely demonstrated in many similar threads.

[LisaL]

45. The police were not wearing uniforms and were after him.

The guy would have no way of knowing they were actually the police.

[lockdown]

23. What if they didn't know that?

What if all they'd been told was there was a suicide bomber and they had to take him out as trained. They are dependent on the people interpreting intelligence and giving them their orders.

I agree, preemptive strikes are not acceptable.

[DistressedAmerican]

27. Just like our whole country was told there were WMD?

Preemption is never an option.

They followed the guy from the apartment building to the station. Could they not have stopped him on the street where he was less of a threat?

Why let him onto a platform with a crowd if you thought he had a bomb?

This whole thing smacks of incompetence and a bit of racism.

This was very poorly handeled and thse involved at all levels should be punished.

[LisaL]

56. Poor British populace. Not only they have to worry about

suicide bombers now, but also being shot in the head by plain clothed policemen.

[Jara sang]

77. I agree with you %100 DA

Killing an innocent human being because thay were "a bit jumpy" is no excuse. They are supposed to be trained professionals. If they are a "bit jumpy" they need to get out of police work.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. I don't think so...

A shoot to kill policy has been instituted for even suspected suicide bombers, based mainly on Israeli tactics.

Considering just off the top of my head I can think of three cases where people rigged up with explosives were restrained without being shot, I think Israel may have a grey area and it's not just a simple shoot to kill thing....

Violet...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. "Just following orders", was popular in Nuremburg.

Eichmann tried the same thing in his trial.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

66. Oh absolutely fucking YES.

The metropolitan police are fucking Eichmann. Tony Blair is Hitler. For god's fucking sake...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Fascist is as fascist does.

Ooooh. I'm ever so sorry to offend the assassins and poor Tony.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

71. And the Metropolitan Police, of course.

And anyone who has a reasonable opinion on this matter that doesn't reduce to fascism vs. liberation ideology. Borrrring...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. OK. "A tragic mistake". There's a lot of that going around lately.

In fact, it's become quite a popular phrase. Every time the US and it's "willing partner" the UK, bomb, shoot, or torture, civilians, it's "A tragic mistake". And, certainly not the fault of the perpetrators who were "only following orders."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

76. deleted: posted in wrong place

[Q]

37. Let us hope...

...that you're not in law enforcement.

[lockdown]

39. Why?

Because I oppose killing people based on mere suspicions, or because I think the police at the sharp end have been put in an impossible position by the decisions and mistakes of their superiors?

[LisaL]

44. If their guidelines is too shot anyone they deem suspicious

in the head, I am very glad I won't be going to London any time soon.
My god, that means they have green light to shot anyone they please.

[lockdown]

64. Not just anyone suspicious,

this was a unit on standby to be called out exclusively for suicide bombers identified by intelligence. The officers involved can be blamed for agreeing to tactics that targetted people on suspicions, but they probably trusted that they wouldn't be called out without very good reason.

I don't agree with the shoot-to-kill on suspicion rationale one bit, but I understand there'll be grey areas where absolute proof is difficult but a threat is overwhelming, and I can imagine someone being convinced of the need for such a response in extreme circumstances. If that's what motivated them, and they trusted the intelligence they were going on, they've been badly let down. There were no grey areas, it was someone living in a block of flats somehow linked to the bombs who dared to use the tube, and calling them in was a ridiculous overreaction. They likely didn't know that at the time, but now they have to live with other peoples' mistakes and terrible guilt, while the fuckers in charge stand by the policy and let them take the blame.

At least it shows how wrong the methods are, and those who promote them.

[Used and Abused]

52. put yourself in his shoes--the terror he must have felt as he saw the guns

cocked and ready to shoot. Maybe this is something he had nightmares about all his life--especially after spending so many years in Brazilian slums.

[1932]

68. I think if he ran anywhere but onto a subway (or a bus) he'd be alive.

[CWebster]

61. Just following orders? I will give the Brits this:

At least they are more likely to admit a mistake than the Americans in the war on tewwowism.

[1932]

67. The guy tried to escape by running down into a tube station and onto the

subway.

The only other thing he could have tried to do that would have sealed his fate would have been to try to get on a bus.

This is a terrible terrible thing, but it does sound like it was the product of a series of some very unfortunate accidents and circumstances.

The full story -- if it can be told without compromising investigative techniques and strategies -- will be very revealing.

[dogday]

70. Didn't they shot him 5 times in the head?

how many times do you need to shot someone in the head?

[parkia00]

72. There goes my holiday!

That settles it. I had planned to go to London for at least a week to visit the museums, antique markets and anyplace a history buff would end up it. I would still have gone after the bombings. I was not going to let any damn terrorist screw up my plan for holidays. But this is over the top! I'm more afraid of the police now than any further attacks on the tube. I'm a fairly dark skinned "ethnic foreign looking" person who will be wearing a backpack to put all the usual tourist stuff in and if the weather is cold, would be wearing a jacket too! It would completely ruin my holidays if an undercover cop pops me in the head because he thought I might be a suicide bomber. They cannot simply shoot people dead and then determine if the dead were suicide bombers or not. It's like culling an entire herd of cattle because some might have mad cow disease! Never expected that law enforcement instead of terrorism would put off my vacation. Decided to go to Thailand instead. Sorry London. Until better and saner times ahead.

:banghead:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. It was a "preemptive" strike. Much like Iraq and the WMD

Saddam might have had WMD.
Saddam might have used WMD if he had them.
Better to murder tens of thousands of Iraqis rather than risk even more deaths.

A guy is walking down the street wearing a jacket.
The jacket might have explosives.
If the jacket has explosives the guy might explode them.
Better to murder him than risk even more deaths.

Some kids carried guns into a school in their backpacks and killed people.
A kid is carrying a back pack into a school.
Better to kill him than risk even more deaths.

The Iraqi resistance blew up a number of cars carrying explosives.
An Iraqi is driving his family somewhere.
The car might be carrying explosives.
The Iraq refuses to stop when warned.
Better to kill the Iraqi and his family than risk even more deaths.

It's all very logical.

[lockdown]

79. I agree

I should've made myself more clear, I'm opposed to the killing of people on suspicion only and angered by the policy. Also, I don't know enough about what happened to totally absolve the shooters, but going on what is known I don't think they should be held primarily reponsible. The true responsibility is higher up.