View Full Version : NEWS: Police shot the wrong man in Stockwell.
The man shot by London Police 5 times in the body, at point blank range, after being physically overpowered, of ASIAN origin, is confirmed by authorities to be NOT connected to the London bombings.
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm
Shot man not connected to bombing
Police cordoned off a 200-metre area around the station
A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.
The man was killed in Stockwell Tube station in an incident described by Scotland Yard as a "tragedy".
Two other men have been arrested and are being questioned after bombers targeted three Tube trains and a bus.
Police have also raided a house in Streatham Hill, south London, in connection with the failed attacks.
'Horrendous consequences'
A Scotland Yard statement read: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is still subject to formal identification.
"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005.
"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."
Good response to CCTV plea
'They unloaded five bullets'
The statement confirmed the man had been followed by police from a house in Tulse Hill that was under surveillance.
His death is being investigated by officers from the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards, and will be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
John O'Connor, former commander of the Met Police, told the BBC the consequences of the shooting were likely to be "quite horrendous".
He said he expected officers to face criminal charges, and other officers could even refuse to carry weapons.
But Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said it was too early to judge what the effects would be.
She called for a "prompt, comprehensive and independent investigation".
Arrests
Police announced on Saturday evening they have raided another property in south London.
The house is currently being searched and it is believed armed officers are there, but no arrests have been made.
Police arrested one man after a raid on a block of flats in Stockwell
Two men are still being held at Paddington Green police station, central London, in connection with Thursday's attacks.
The first man was arrested at around 1630 BST on Friday during a raid on a block of flats near to Oval and Stockwell Tube stations.
Eyewitnesses said he was led away with a woman and child.
The second man was arrested late on Friday night, also in the Stockwell area.
Both are being held under anti-terrorism legislation which gives police 14 days before they have to bring charges.
CCTV images
Scotland Yard said they had been contacted by over 500 members of the public following the release of CCTV footage of four suspects.
Detectives said they were hopeful of useful lines of inquiry coming from the calls and e-mails.
Three devices found after the failed bombings were the same size and weight as those used in the suicide attacks of 7 July, which killed scores.
The fourth was smaller, apparently contained in a plastic box. The same chemicals appear to have been used.
They targeted Oval, Warren Street and Shepherd's Bush stations and a bus in Hackney.
The Hammersmith and City line train was removed from Shepherd's Bush station on Saturday afternoon.
Transport for London said it hoped to have trains running on the line from Paddington to Hammersmith on Saturday evening.
-------------
scooter_the_shooter
07-23-2005, 21:12
the guy ran what do you expect them to do. Uniformed and plain clothes officers were after him and he kept going why???
a guy that runs from the police and tries to jump into a train the day after a terrorist incident occured....
i would have shot him....
Templar Knight
07-23-2005, 21:23
Its an unfortunate thing, but the guy was under surveillance, failed to respond to police commands, was wearing thick clothing and ran for a tube train, 5 shots is perhaps a little much, 2 to the head would have been enough - (double tap) - but they done the right thing.
ShadesPanther
07-23-2005, 21:54
I like the way they have Asian in capital letters. Its a bit stupid though if you saw anyone doing what he did he would be shot but obviously if he was asian (middle eastern) and did that you would be more worried as the police
What he did definately gave the police reason to shoot him. Also Ronin he was wearing a heavy jacket in warm weather now that is a little suspicius and 2 weeks after a suicide bombers and (i think the news said) suicide bombers the day before.
He definately did deserve to be shot. 5 may seem a little nuch but if he only is wounded he could still trigger a bomb.
Marcellus
07-23-2005, 22:29
of ASIAN origin
The man, who died at Stockwell Tube on Friday, has been named by police as Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27.
Since when has Brazil been in Asia?
This event is a tragedy, but if the reports of the man running from the police onto a train, despite being challenging to stop (vaulting over a ticket barrier in the process) are true, then I'm not surprised that the police decided to shoot him, under these circumstances.
I said at the time it seemed in cold blood and hasty, I never imagined the guy was no way near connected, merely just not a suicide bomber. This really is dissapointing. Bad form police.
scooter_the_shooter
07-23-2005, 22:46
JAG wth are they supposed to do. Asian man with heavy coat running from armed police..... Can you really blame them for shooting him after what has been going on in your city. If he was a terriost and they didn't kill him you would probably be like "why didn't they shoot him 5 or 6 times" :help:
lancelot
07-23-2005, 22:47
I said at the time it seemed in cold blood and hasty, I never imagined the guy was no way near connected, merely just not a suicide bomber. This really is dissapointing. Bad form police.
I disagree Im afraid.
He was apparently challenged, then ran into a station. Its unfortunate, but I think the actions of the police (however agressive) were legitimate.
His connection (or lack of) to terror is irrelevent.
Do you people forget something? These were PLAIN clothed policemen, trailing this man for a long time, wielding weapons and shouting and screaming. Can you not understand why this guy would be afraid for his life?!
Imagine yourself in this guys situation, you know what has happened in London and that there already has been retaliation strikes by vigilantes against muslims and mosques. Three big blokes are following you at a swift pace, you can't loose them, they suddenly tell you to stop and produce hand guns, when you panick and run they scream and shout and chase you... Do you have no regard as to how someone in his situation might be terrified out of his brain?
It is also not certain that he knew English, to at least English to a brilliant standard, so all those lovely shouted warnings, could have merely been interpreted as blokes shouting at their mates to get him. If you were in Turkey and three men kept following you, proceeded to then chase, shout in Turkish and produce firearms, after an attack like we have had... Would you not be scared of it being a 'revenge' attack on a person of your description?! No?
This is precisely why guns should NEVER be used but in the upmost instances of CLEAR and CONFIRMED danger. This is why you do not have a 'shoot to kill' policy. Remember the police had this guy pinned down, yet they still proceeded to shoot him five times in the head at point blank range, bloody madness and it is a disgrace. The policemen should be held with upmost suspicion, they very well might have acted out of some form of revenge, we simply do not know.
scooter_the_shooter
07-24-2005, 00:26
JAG I thought some uniformed police were after him too???
Big King Sanctaphrax
07-24-2005, 00:41
Imagine yourself in this guys situation, you know what has happened in London and that there already has been retaliation strikes by vigilantes against muslims and mosques. Three big blokes are following you at a swift pace, you can't loose them, they suddenly tell you to stop and produce hand guns, when you panick and run they scream and shout and chase you... Do you have no regard as to how someone in his situation might be terrified out of his brain?
It's quite possible that this is why he ran, and if it was the case, what happened is extremely regrettable. However, it does not change the fact that he did run, into a tube station, just days after bomb attacks on tube stations, and failed to respond to police instructions. Under these circumstances, I really don't see what else the officers could have done. I can see where you're coming from JAG, but I feel in this instance we have to give the Police the benefit of the doubt.
In response to your Turkish example, I might indeed have run in that situation. If I had fled onto the Istanbul underground-I'm not sure if there is one, but never mind-soon after a bomb attack on that same underground system, I would not find it unreasonable if the officers shot me. Well, obviously I wouldn't like it-I mean, I'd be dead-but if I was an impartial observer watching me, I wouldn't blame the police for taking me dopwn.
Papewaio
07-24-2005, 02:03
Was he already pinned down when the shot him? Then it is first degree murder and the lot of them should be up for adding and assisting the crime as they did not stop it.
If he was still running and not stopping then it was the right thing to do, given the series of suicide bombings.
I suspect they shot him merely out of fear that he was carrying a bomb. Hard to restrain a guy who is willing and able to blow himself and all around to pieces. Five rounds seem excessive though. It seems to me to be a failure of intelligence coupled with real fear to me.
Steppe Merc
07-24-2005, 02:08
They should certaintly be brought up on charges. And since when is Asian the same thing as Middle Eastern? It's not, last I looked.
Was he already pinned down when the shot him? Then it is first degree murder and the lot of them should be up for adding and assisting the crime as they did not stop it.
If he was still running and not stopping then it was the right thing to do, given the series of suicide bombings.
My point exactly! He was ALREADY PINNED DOWN, by an officer on him - ALL eyewitness statements say this - then another officer came up with a gun in his left hand and shot his head off five times. There was zero need to actively shoot him, they got him. The fact that he was totally innocent compounds the situation and definitely makes it something we should take very seriously. We cannot have the police shooting to kill every 'funny looking asian' that there is in this country. We have thousands upon thousands of asian citizens, it is not fair.
BKS - of course you would not like it, you would be dead, don't be silly. If I was totally innocent and I was shot like that by the police, I would be pissed out of my mind.
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-24-2005, 02:13
shot his head off five times
They can do that!?
scooter_the_shooter
07-24-2005, 02:14
Well I see why they did it...but I dont like it because if he was a terriost and had a dead mens switch on a bomb then they would all be dead.(thats when if the grip on the "switch" lossens the bomb will go off)
If they did not have his arms pinned down then I could see why they thought there was still danger.
Papewaio
07-24-2005, 02:21
Well if I was an electrician I would be asking for danger money in the UK about now...
Steppe Merc
07-24-2005, 02:22
In all honestly, I don't care if the police's action was understandable, or whatever. They killed someone that was innocent, they have to face prosecution. If you kill someone by accident in a car, you still have to pay.
Police should be held even closer to the letter of the law than civilians, IMO.
Papewaio
07-24-2005, 02:26
I can't believe you guys are defending this. Even in America there would be uproar over this.
Shows how real the stiff upper lip thing is...
Why aren't you lot upset about the police not publising a major change in policy that allows them to shoot to kill?
Surely such a major policy change although logical should be known to the public. It is still not a police state and the public should have some say. I'm sure they probably would agree with it. Also the deterrent factor would rise if people knew about it...
Shows how real the stiff upper lip thing is...
Why aren't you lot upset about the police not publising a major change in policy that allows them to shoot to kill?
Surely such a major policy change although logical should be known to the public. It is still not a police state and the public should have some say. I'm sure they probably would agree with it. Also the deterrent factor would rise if people knew about it...
IIRC, Britain has always had a "shoot to kill" policy, of some sort[1]. If the police believe someone is an imminent threat to life - e.g. pointing a gun at someone - they can shoot to kill that person. What has changed now, is that with the threat of suicide bombing, such an imminent threat could be perceived to be a man in a padded coat fleeing police and diving onto a tube train. The British police have consulted security forces in Israel and elsewhere that have had to deal with suicide bombers, and drawn lessons accordingly.
You have to understand the context. To people in Australia and the US, the shooting might look like something that just happened out of the blue. But it happened a day after the second attempt to detonate four suicide bombs on tube trains and buses in that area. Four escaped bombers were (are) being hunted in the vicinity. The police were probably as jumpy as US soldiers on the road to Baghdad airport at night and were taking no chances. Yes, far away, in the quiet of our homes, we might wish they were more restrained. And no doubt when things have quietened down, this kind of incident will once again be very rare.
Personally, I think it is a great tragedy that an innocent, scared young man has died in such an awful way. And it should be, and no doubt will, be investigated. But I see no prima facie case for any criminal charge against the policeman who killed him.
[1]British security forces have a surprisingly robust approach to the use of lethal force. I remember a TV documentary where German and British army officers were discussing policy in the case of civil unrest. A German officer was appalled: "You shoot at the looters?"
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-24-2005, 03:28
And what if the guy was a bomber? Then people would be up in arms because the police didn't kill him.
It's cases like these where the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I think so, anyway.
I still think there's too much unknown. Where there uniformed police there or weren't there? When the man was shot, was he trying to get up and run again or was he down with a policeman on top of him? Its seems like you're hearing just about everything on this story.
I still think there's too much unknown. Where there uniformed police there or weren't there? When the man was shot, was he trying to get up and run again or was he down with a policeman on top of him? Its seems like you're hearing just about everything on this story.
Like with most police shootings in the United States - I am sure the British run a board of inquiry into the events, circumstances, situation, and overall mental impressions and state of the Police Officers involved.
Frankly most police officers have a conscience about their having to shoot someone. So I will wait for the official investigation and conclusions before I condemn these police officers or there actions.
Ok, there has been repeated suicide attacks, a man IN A THICK COAT IN HOT HUMID WEATHER, come running down away from plains clothed AND UNIFORMED police into a tube station, he tries TO RUN INTO CROWED CARRIAGE, police tackle him and shoot him to stop him pulling theoretical trigger in his hand that would have killed 30 people.
How in gods name can you condemn the police???
Its the coat thing that solves the issue for me, and that he was comeing from a house connected to earlier attacks. I just can't understand your position Jag what should they have done? Read him his rights while he blows 30-40 innocent people to Kingdom come???
Crazed Rabbit
07-24-2005, 05:54
My point exactly! He was ALREADY PINNED DOWN, by an officer on him - ALL eyewitness statements say this - then another officer came up with a gun in his left hand and shot his head off five times. There was zero need to actively shoot him, they got him. The fact that he was totally innocent compounds the situation and definitely makes it something we should take very seriously. We cannot have the police shooting to kill every 'funny looking asian' that there is in this country. We have thousands upon thousands of asian citizens, it is not fair.
BKS - of course you would not like it, you would be dead, don't be silly. If I was totally innocent and I was shot like that by the police, I would be pissed out of my mind.
Even when pinned down, he still might have been able to activate his bomb, had he had one.
Lol, JAG, you make it seem as though its not fair to shoot asians because there's so many of them. And I wonder how pissed off you could be - without a head.
Seriously, this is a tragic situation, but I will wait for the inquiry.
Crazed Rabbit
The man was innocent, and now he's dead. The law is the law, and if it was here in the US I would be pusing for them to be fired. The Circumstances suck, but when you take risks you need to own up when you're wrong.
To be fired!! WTF!!
They were doing they're job in protecting the general public, this guys actions warranted the belief that he intended to kill as many people as he could, he was stopped. Sure with 20-20 hindsight and knowing he was innocent then a wrong is done, but I wrong wasn't done by the police, they took the appropriate action under the circumstances and no matter how much you pussy foot around after the action thats a fact. They did the only thing they could.
Their actions which were entirly legitmate under the circumstances done to save the lives of 30 people. We now know he is innocent but all the evidence available to the police showed a definite threat the populace.
What would you have done in their place?
It is great seeing all these Conservatives picking and choosing their belief in the 'sanctity of life'. They do it everytime, it is surprising they don't believe in moral relativism, they use it enough.
If thats too me, then its retared as I ain't conservative in the slightest. I am 100% pro choice.
ICantSpellDawg
07-24-2005, 06:59
If thats too me, then its retared as I ain't conservative in the slightest. I am 100% pro choice.
Wow, I now feel ignorant that I am a conservative.
*retarded
Btw, Jag what would you have done if you were one of the police officers?
I said at the time it seemed in cold blood and hasty, I never imagined the guy was no way near connected, merely just not a suicide bomber. This really is dissapointing. Bad form police.
beg pardon Jag,
but the dude was wearing a thick jacket in warm weather,
he had just left a suspected terrorists house,
when he entered the tube train police challenged him to stop,
he ran, vaulted the ticket barrier and charged onto a tube train.
This the day after 4 devices failed to explode.
the police had 2 choices
1. wait for him at the next station, and maybe the train does not get blown up,
2. go for a central nervous system shutdown so he could not trigger a device,
so they shot him, in the head which is an instant nervous system shutdown.
and as you would know if you have ever fired a semi-automatic weapon 5 shots takes but a moment to unload.
The Police did what was needed under the conditions.
Once again peoples, having been in 3 bombings in the 70's in and around London, I have no sympathy for such people,
and absolutely no sympathy for idiots - which that Brazillian obviously was,
why the heck did he not stop when challenged?
EDIT - by the way, according to his FAMILY he spoke PERFECT english, they do not understand why he would fail to stop.
B.
Where does this 'warm weather' come from? It was miserable on the day he was shot. Cloudy, overcast and drizzly.
and to kill the obvious response "but they had overpowered him"
yeah sure, they had knocked him down but when you are holding a detonation trigger in your hot little hand all you got to do is press the button,
the ONLY way to stop someone doing that is shut down his nervous system.
B.
the warm weather comes from the news reports,
and if you are going to say "dont believe the news"
well thenm, why should i now believe news reports he had nothing to do with it?
B.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41331000/jpg/_41331565_stockwell_203.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41331000/jpg/_41331565_stockwell_203.jpg
just in case remote linking fails,
here's the police cordon around the station - see the fruit and veg vendor??
Raining my big fat behind,
he has his rain cover DOWN dude.
B.
edit - and not a brolly in sight
here's the crowd in the park over the road,
no brollies there either
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41331000/jpg/_41331659_kudryashova_journos.jpg
rasoforos
07-24-2005, 07:24
The guy comes from a country with extremely high unprovoced murder rates.
In addition, some police departments there sometimes just go into a slum neighbourhood and start shooting people they dont like in cold blood for no reason.
Its possible the guy couldnt even speak english properly.
As a result its possible he didnt notice its the police, especially if they were in civilian clothes or if someone was too fast to pull a gun.
I wont criticise the police AT ALL. Its not their fault, they didnt put us into this mess. Its that pompous arrogant %$^&*% of a prime minister who put us all into this chaos. And what did the UK earn? Alies were allienated , the economy now suffers,the city is affected as a financial centre, we practically HAVE to live with the fear of terrorists. For nothing...
If [] George Bush means so much to him he should resign from PM, move to the white house, and they can live happilly ever after! He should resign and leave us alone.
:furious3:
But of course we know him well dont we? He ll smile like a demented granny and will tell us how we should push forward and how determined we should be and all that nonsence.
here's the crowd in the park over the road,
no brollies there either
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41331000/jpg/_41331659_kudryashova_journos.jpg
Thank you! You just proved my point. See how many have heavy jackets and coats on? See how overcast it is? Did you watch the cricket at Lords as well? was just as overcast in South London as it was at Lords. It was NOT out of the ordinary for this guy to have a jacket on, it wasn't a very hot day.
Proletariat
07-24-2005, 07:27
So sorry, JAG.
Productivity
07-24-2005, 07:27
I would suggest using a bit more quantifiable form of evidence barocca. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/education/archive/uk/
From a quick scan it appears that yes, it was not raining. But it wasn't particularly warm either. It was not like he was wearing a great coat on a 40 degrees day.
Cheers DGB, I was tryign to find that page but couldn;t locate it.
South-east England
Friday 22 July, 2005 09:00 GMT
Andrewsfield No data
Benson NW Overcast
Boscombe Down Mostly Cloudy
Bournemouth Partly Cloudy
Heathrow Mostly Cloudy
Herstmonceux Mostly Cloudy
Manston Rain showers
Middle Wallop Overcast
Northolt Mostly Cloudy
Odiham Mostly Cloudy
Redhill No data
Shoeburyness No data
Solent (MRSC)Partly Cloudy
Original post has been edited by poster (Ser Clegane)
Nice remarks.
Since when is it a crime to wear a coat on a hot day, in any case? I have a Leather Jacket--nothing special, just a plain old black leather jacket--that i've had for as long as I can remember. I simply don't wear anything else when I go out abroad, even when it's hot, just out of habit. Is it okay to shoot me now?
Notice how these cops were not in uniform, by the way. Does the man know english? Did the cops say they were cops? Did he think he was being attacked by armed criminals?
He was wearing a large coat on a hot day (and thats according to eye witnesses) which is often used to hide explosives and defintly a reason to arise suspicion.
Yes his family have announced he spoke perfect English.
The cops most certainly said they were cops, I believe the words were "stop police".
It is possible he thought he was being attacked by armed criminials, it is the only explanation for his irrational behaviour I can think of.
So, if you were wearing a thick coat on a hot day, and ran into a subway station that has been the target of multiple terrorist attacks in recent times, refused to stop when asked by police and headed for a crowded carriage, then yes its ok to shoot you.
i was born in the uk,
since when has 17 degrees with a 4 knot wind been cold and miserable?
it is 16 degrees outside right now, the wind is 5 knots right NOW
it is overcast RIGHT NOW
it is 6:15 pm, sunset was about 45 minutes ago
- t-shirt's and shorts are what peeps are wearing at the shops opposite my house right this minute.
he SPOKE PERFECT ENGLISH - try reading all the posts, or better yet go and look for the interviews with his family on the internet.
He has lived in the UK for three years,
if he does not know by now that the UK police do not ride around wasting people for fun ... well that might also explain why he ran into a tube station and onto a train the day after a terrorist attack on the subway system.
they hit him in the head, yet you claim they missed??
sorry you are totally wrong,
had to be said,
if you want someone to stop thinking you take away their brain - shoot them in the head.
and i ALREADY said that in a previous post - once again people GO READ EVERYTHING before you make a fool out of yourselves.
you claim it was raining and miserable,
i show a couple of photo's with not a drop of rain or a brolly in sight,
you say that proves your point?
yeah right, maybe on some fantasy planet
if it was raining and miserable, as you claimed, then people should have had brolly's, anoracks - that sort of thing, there should also be water on the ground,
17 degrees is heavy coat weather?? dont make me laugh,
how stupid do you think the rest of us are Jag?
here is yet another shot
see all the short sleeves,
http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,5029799,00.jpg
B.
Ser Clegane
07-24-2005, 09:31
I am sure that there will be a very thorough investigation of the circumstances around this shooting.
Until that is done we should be very careful with throwing around accusations of any kind - unlike the policemen in this case we do not have to decide on the spot, we have the luxury of taking time and looking deeper into this case - time we should better take.
Unfortunately, this case might exactly be what the terrorists wanted - a sign of an atmosphere of mistrust and fear. Let's hope that this tragedy will be an exception.
One remark on the weather - a guy from Brazil might indeed consider 17°C not to be particulartly warm (but then - that's not necessarily what you consider in such a situation)
Unfortunately, this case might exactly be what the terrorists wanted - a sign of an atmosphere of mistrust and fear. Let's hope that this tragedy will be an exception.
In that regard I fear you are completely correct. A chance for another propaganda victory and more importantly they know they are making us twitch, for all the 'show no fear' remarks we are hearing from the media, we are getting jumpy.
bmolsson
07-24-2005, 10:42
First, its always a tragedy when somebody dies. Everyone that have an attitude on this would surely have a different view if your dad, brother or son was shot dead because he was afraid and runned off from a band of cops.
Second, as long as the police make an inquiry, take it seriously and prosecute if any wrongdoing has been made, I can't see any actual problems. Guns always create situations where somebody dies. Also, if found guilty, a police officer should receive a less sentence than a civilian, we have to recognise their role in society.
Third, this is EXACTLY what the terrorist what to happen.
I feel for the innocent mans family as well as for the police man that pulled the trigger. This can't be good at all......
Ja'chyra
07-24-2005, 10:43
Nice, condemn the police on some half arsed newspaper reporters say so, sometimes you go too far JAG and I hope you never have people's lives depending on you.
I would say it was a fair call at the time, with hindsight they might have reacted differently but their goal is to protect lives and if that means that 1 has to die to save hundreds then so be it.
Duke of Gloucester
07-24-2005, 11:30
I am not going to make a judgement until I hear the results of the enquiry. Unfortunately this is a victory for the terrorists, and whether or not the police should have acted differently, this is definitely a viotory for the terrorists.
......if that means that 1 has to die to save hundreds then so be it.
Do you really mean this? If you mean that sometimes mistakes will be made and that suicide bombers make it difficult for the police and they have to make split second decisions, then I would agree, but if you mean that it is ok to kill an innocent person to save others, then I would have to disagree totally. This principle could be used to justify all sorts of appalling behaviour by the state.
Big King Sanctaphrax
07-24-2005, 11:37
In all honestly, I don't care if the police's action was understandable, or whatever. They killed someone that was innocent, they have to face prosecution. If you kill someone by accident in a car, you still have to pay.
Police should be held even closer to the letter of the law than civilians, IMO.
If you kill someone in an accident in a car when you have done nothing wrong, you won't be punished-it's an accident, see.
This is the same kind of thing. The police really did have no choice in this matter-the guy was fleeing into a tube station, when asked to stop by them, the day after the terrorist attacks. Whatever reason he had for doing this doesn't excuse the fact that he did, and the police responded accordingly.
I'd love you to enlighten me Jag, what would you have done in the police's position???
What could they possibly have done differently???
Tribesman
07-24-2005, 12:55
What could they possibly have done differently???
Well for starters they could have had the right house/person under surveillance , then as they were after suspected suicide bombers who are attacking train stations then they should have had officers in place ahead of the "suspect" at the train station so he couldn't have entered it .
If they have a suspect under observation and a possible target just down the road then it was grossly incompetant not to have officers in place to stop the person reaching the target .
Chasing someone does not stop them getting somewhere , being between them and where they are going stops them getting there .
A lack of co-ordination is clearly evident .
Ja'chyra
07-24-2005, 13:07
What could they possibly have done differently???
Well for starters they could have had the right house/person under surveillance , then as they were after suspected suicide bombers who are attacking train stations then they should have had officers in place ahead of the "suspect" at the train station so he couldn't have entered it .
If they have a suspect under observation and a possible target just down the road then it was grossly incompetant not to have officers in place to stop the person reaching the target .
Chasing someone does not stop them getting somewhere , being between them and where they are going stops them getting there .
A lack of co-ordination is clearly evident .
Woah there bud, ain't hindsight wonderful?
Unless he started in a dead end there was two directions he could have went and every street or alley passed adds more directions, and maybe they were following for a reason like to see where he went and who he spoke to.
It's easy to criticise others actions, but unless you were the person making the decision then whatever you think doesn't really matter and it's all speculation.
Do you really mean this? If you mean that sometimes mistakes will be made and that suicide bombers make it difficult for the police and they have to make split second decisions, then I would agree, but if you mean that it is ok to kill an innocent person to save others, then I would have to disagree totally. This principle could be used to justify all sorts of appalling behaviour by the state.
I would say they made the decision after fair warning was given and I would think that the policeman was certain that he was a terrorist and he made the choice to kill one suspect terrorist and potentially save hundreds of innocent lives. The fact that the man wasn't a terrorist doesn't make the policeman who pulled the triggers decision wrong, he made the right choice, as far as I'm concerned, based on the information available at the time.
I am also sure that there will be a full investigation, any criticism at this time is unhelpful and unwarranted.
My heartfelt condolences to his family. It’s a horrible way to end a life.
They should certaintly be brought up on charges. And since when is Asian the same thing as Middle Eastern? It's not, last I looked. I think the term is used to describe people with Pakistani origins, in other words: brown people.
Tribesman
07-24-2005, 13:31
Woah there bud, ain't hindsight wonderful?
What hindsight ? It is a lack of foresight and co-ordination that was the problem .
and maybe they were following for a reason like to see where he went and who he spoke to.
Really I thought they were trying to stop him from blowing up a train , thats why they shot him in the head wasn't it ? Or do you think that since they thought he was wired with explosives he was just going out for a chat with his friends .
Woah there bud, ain't hindsight wonderful?
What hindsight ? It is a lack of foresight and co-ordination that was the problem
I imagine police resources are pretty stretched at the moment, and I imagine there are also a number of houses across the capital that are under surveillance. It would have been totally impractical to run a large scale surveillance operation running multiple teams covering all potential avenues of escape or potential targets such as tube stations. You must also remember that these were just normal plain-clothed police officers, not surveillance specialists from MI5.
and maybe they were following for a reason like to see where he went and who he spoke to.
Really I thought they were trying to stop him from blowing up a train , thats why they shot him in the head wasn't it ? Or do you think that since they thought he was wired with explosives he was just going out for a chat with his friends
We don't know the exact reason why they started following him. When they started following him, it is quite probable they didn't know where he was going or what he was doing, but didn't consider him an imminent threat (which was why only 3 men were assinged to follow him). When he subsequently ran in to a tube station, ignoring warnings from police to stop (which he understood because he spoke perfect English, according to his family), it isn't unreasonable for the police to then consider him an imminet threat and shoot him.
lanky316
07-24-2005, 14:04
What a horrible way to go, being followed by people from the minute you left your house, when one of them shouts and draws a gun on you you run for dear life just be tackled and shot in the head :(
I hope the people responsible for this are heavily reprimanded for what they do and something is done because the poor soul must have been petrified (and by all accounts he looked it) and at least the one thing they did right was end it all quickly.
Ja'chyra
07-24-2005, 15:30
Woah there bud, ain't hindsight wonderful?
What hindsight ? It is a lack of foresight and co-ordination that was the problem .
and maybe they were following for a reason like to see where he went and who he spoke to.
Really I thought they were trying to stop him from blowing up a train , thats why they shot him in the head wasn't it ? Or do you think that since they thought he was wired with explosives he was just going out for a chat with his friends .
I didn't realise you were trained in police resources and operations, but, as you seem to think you know more than the rest of us why don't you tell us how you would have done it.
KingOfTheIsles
07-24-2005, 16:16
I love the phrasing, "The policeman had no choice." He had a choice, and he chose wrongly based on shaky suspicions. I fail to see the point of the inquiry, I seriously doubt it will be anything but a whitewash as the authorities have a lot to lose in this situation, so I think the verdict of some government-appointed investigation will be biased. The facts seem to indicate that this was a tragic mistake, and that there are plausible reasons for the suspicious behaviour, but IMO this policy of shooting at the head is fundamentally flawed, if the police had him pinned anyway.
Essentially, this was murder in cold blood, as I cannot see any reason why an immobilised suspect should be shot 5 time sin the head. If this is what results from using armed plain-clothes officers, Scotland Yard seriously needs to reevaluate its policies, as this is justy handing another propaganda victory to the terrorists.
Steppe Merc
07-24-2005, 17:02
BKS, I thought that you could get charged for man slaughter if you hit someone by accident...
Anyway, my point is this. I can understand why the police did what they did. However, they killed someone, and that is illegal. As much as it may seem unfair, the fairness (and the law I believe) dictaces that some sort of investigation goes on. I don't want him to die or anything, but he broke the law.
I think the term is used to describe people with Pakistani origins, in other words: brown people.
Ah. Thanks, I was quite confused (perhaps understandably so). :bow:
Big King Sanctaphrax
07-24-2005, 17:14
BKS, I thought that you could get charged for man slaughter if you hit someone by accident...
Only if you're unfit to drive, or driving dangerously. If someone runs out in front of you at a crossing, and you kill them, you've done nothing illegal.
I can't see how the police officer broke the law. He shot at a suspect running away from him, who had failed to stop, and who he believed was a danger to other people. The police are authorised to use lethal force in such circumstances.
Azi Tohak
07-24-2005, 17:42
My problem is not the number of bullets (1, 5, 15..he's still dead) but the fact that he was pinned to the ground and then executed.
No man deserves that. At least hold him until you can get some more info.
Azi
Grey_Fox
07-24-2005, 17:42
this policy of shooting at the head is fundamentally flawed, if the police had him pinned anyway.
Essentially, this was murder in cold blood, as I cannot see any reason why an immobilised suspect should be shot 5 time sin the head.
My problem is not the number of bullets (1, 5, 15..he's still dead) but the fact that he was pinned to the ground and then executed.
No man deserves that. At least hold him until you can get some more info.
Suicide bombers typically have a trigger in their hand. Pinning a person to the ground is not going to prevent them from pressing the trigger. The only thing that will stop them from pulling the trigger is causing an immediate central nervous system shutdown, and this is achieved by putting as many bullets as possible into the head and spine of the suicide bomber. Until that is done, you and everybody around you are dead. You may think it is cold-blooded murder or an execution, but it is the only practical way to make certain that a suicide bomber does not trigger his bombs.
The guy spoke perfect english. He was wearing a thick padded coat. At least one witness stated that he was wearing a bomb belt with wires coming out (which, considering he was an electrician may just have been the tools of his trade, wither way it is enough to arouse suspicion). He was challenged by police, both plain clothed and uniformed, yet decided to run away, into a tube station. He then ran into a train and, according to an eyewitness, he grabbed a pole and another person. He was tackled to the ground and shot multiple times (some people say they heard four shots, others say they heard five, but it is irrelevant).
The real problem I see here is why, if he was an innocent bystander, did he run away? That is probably what sealed his fate. If a police officer tells you to stop, you stop, and do it immediately, otherwise you are just digging a grave for yourself.
In my opinion, the Brazilian is as responsible for his death, if not more so, than the police officers involved.
scooter_the_shooter
07-24-2005, 17:43
Azi some people DO deserve that. But this is not one of them.
Essentially, this was murder in cold blood, as I cannot see any reason why an immobilised suspect should be shot 5 time sin the head. If this is what results from using armed plain-clothes officers, Scotland Yard seriously needs to reevaluate its policies, as this is justy handing another propaganda victory to the terrorists.Are we certain he was immobilized and pinned down? It seems you hear different versions.
As to plain clothes officers, I do think they can be problematic and maybe shouldnt be used to apprehend suspects- for their own safety and the safety of the suspect. If someone sees a man with a gun chasing a terrified guy through the streets, how are people to know who the 'good guy' is? What if some would-be hero were to attack the undercover cop thinking he's an assailant?
Tribesman
07-24-2005, 18:01
If he was such an imminent threat when he was in a train station that he had to be shot , why was he not such an imminent threat when he got on a bus ?
Surely as buses have been targets of suicide bombers why not shoot him when he gets on one ? why wait until he gets to a train ? how is he that much more of an imminent threat because it is a train and not a bus ?
If he is that much of an imminent threat that he has to be executed then execute him as soon as he walks out of his front door , or even better knock down his front door and execute him in the comfort of his own home .
We don't know the exact reason why they started following him. When they started following him, it is quite probable they didn't know where he was going or what he was doing, but didn't consider him an imminent threat
Yes we do , they started following him the moment he left the house in Tulse Hill , they followed him because they had the house under observation as a suspected base for the suicide bombers , they followed him on the bus , they followed him to the tube .
At which point did he become such an imminent threat that he had to be killed ? when he was on the floor ? Rubbish .
If he was an imminent threat who had to be killed to remove the threat then you remove the threat at the first oppertunity , when he leaves the house , or before he leaves it .
Oh yeah , and for all those going on about the fact that he was wearing a coat in British summertime . Next time you are in London take a look around . You will notice a hell of a lot of people wearing coats on even the hottest British summers day .
lanky316
07-24-2005, 18:07
Yes we do , they started following him the moment he left the house in Tulse Hill , they followed him because they had the house under observation as a suspected base for the suicide bombers , they followed him on the bus , they followed him to the tube .
I wasn't entirely aware of the route, I knew they'd tracked him but not the bit on the bus. Which asks the question why did nobody confront him on here, they didn't need to startle the poor sod and make him panic on a bus, it's one of the easier places to corner and question somebody without waving a gun and shouting "stop"...
Tribesman
07-24-2005, 18:34
The point I am trying to make is .
If they thought he was wired with explosives then they should get him at the first oppetunity , not let him wander round the capital hoping that they could see who he was going to talk to .
If they didn't think he was wired with explosives then they should't shoot him .
So which was it ?
Were they allowing a walking bomb to wander around London or didn't they think he was a walking bomb .
Either way it is a serious balls up .
A.Saturnus
07-24-2005, 20:50
If you excuse the policemen for confusing a brazilian with an asian, why not excuse the man for mistaking plain cloth policmen for robbers?
scooter_the_shooter
07-24-2005, 21:09
uniformed police were after him too. So that isnt an excuse.
scooter_the_shooter
07-24-2005, 21:22
I really hate things like this becausethe only way to deal with it is.
Do nothing
do A vast invasion of privacy. Searches, No more coats allowed etc.Armed gaurds at every corner.
I dont like either idea. What can the authorities do
Grey_Fox
07-24-2005, 21:36
Alright, so let's just assume that the cops made a mistake; there was no particularly sinister intent here, and it was all purely an accident.
Of course it was a bloody accident. You don't seriously think that the policemen involved were a bunch of murderous thugs set out to kill as many Brazilians as possible, do you?
Wearing a coat is not a crime. Being a darker clour than the natives is not a crime. Neither is getting on a bus or the tube. Even running from the police is not a crime. Getting caught in a surveillence operation is not a crime.
Shooting a man dead is a crime.
There will be an investigation as there is into any police shooting, and if it is open and honest I suspect it will be rather unpleasant for all involved. All the reports I have seen/heard indicate that the officers involved were all plain clothes and that the rules governing lethal force have recently and quietly been altered. I suspect that policy changes are more important than personnel changes.
As a side note: we have been told again and again that suicide bombs are usually detonated remotely or on a timer so that the carrier is less likely to bottle it. Why then assume that this man was reaching to trigger a device and thus shoot him in this way? Or have we been told a bunch of lies again?
scooter_the_shooter
07-24-2005, 21:58
Usually does not mean always.
I think those cops should not be have charges pressed. should not be fired. but should have a desk job now(and they probably want one too)
Wearing a coat is not a crime. Being a darker clour than the natives is not a crime. Neither is getting on a bus or the tube. Even running from the police is not a crime. Getting caught in a surveillence operation is not a crime.
No - none of those things are a crime. However running from the police gives the illusion that you are committing a crime
Shooting a man dead is a crime.
It all depends on the circumstances involved in the shooting. The police's actions will be investigated and a conclusion will be drawn. There is not enough information for us as bystanders to determine if the police acted with criminal negliance.
There will be an investigation as there is into any police shooting, and if it is open and honest I suspect it will be rather unpleasant for all involved. All the reports I have seen/heard indicate that the officers involved were all plain clothes and that the rules governing lethal force have recently and quietly been altered. I suspect that policy changes are more important than personnel changes.
And when the conclusions come out we can then pass sound and logical judgment on the police officer's actions. If the rules have been changed and the police were not adequately trained prior to the operation - and events - it sheds a little more light on the subject then the media reports so far that I have read.
As a side note: we have been told again and again that suicide bombs are usually detonated remotely or on a timer so that the carrier is less likely to bottle it. Why then assume that this man was reaching to trigger a device and thus shoot him in this way? Or have we been told a bunch of lies again?
THe devices have been set off by all the above mentioned ways. You might want to research into the sucide bombings in Israel - they often are done by the bomber with a trigger device incase they are caught before they reach their intended target. I would hazard a guess that the English Police have been taken lesson learned from Israel in their methods of dealing with bombers now.
Steppe Merc
07-24-2005, 22:14
Red is probably right, right now there isn't enough info. There will (or should be) an investigation, and then they when there is more information, a desicion will be made.
However, who will be doing an invistagation? I hardly think that the police should invistigate themselves...
I can not condone this murder, but I do understand the dire circumstances that caused it.
This shouldn’t have happened at all. An innocent young man was robbed of his life, causing great grief to his family, and most likely ruined the lives of the police officers involved.
People should not so hastily forget that the terrorists were the ones who sowed the sorrow which London now reaps. And inshallah the monsters who caused this evil will suffer in hell for all of eternity. His blood is on their hands.
I still feel that the police merely did thier job.
Tribesman
07-25-2005, 00:15
I still feel that the police merely did thier job.
Yeah right , I will be travelling on the tube and the London buses next month ,I will not be wearing a big coat but I will be carrying a big bag .
I have been detained many times as a suspected terrorist even though I have nothing to do with terrorism .
Should I be killed just because of some suspicion ?
My wife , even though she is British has also had to go through the same shit , should she be shot just because she might be linked to terrorism ?
So the issue is not if the police did their job , the issue is if the police in attempting to do their job made a big fuck up .
Unfortunately it looks like the police did the latter .
we have been told again and again that suicide bombs are usually detonated remotely or on a timer so that the carrier is less likely to bottle it. Why then assume that this man was reaching to trigger a device and thus shoot him in this way?
From what I have read, with both waves of the London bombings, the detonation (or attempted detonation) was manual.
ShadesPanther
07-25-2005, 00:58
I still feel that the police merely did thier job.
Yeah right , I will be travelling on the tube and the London buses next month ,I will not be wearing a big coat but I will be carrying a big bag .
I have been detained many times as a suspected terrorist even though I have nothing to do with terrorism .
Should I be killed just because of some suspicion ?
My wife , even though she is British has also had to go through the same shit , should she be shot just because she might be linked to terrorism ?
So the issue is not if the police did their job , the issue is if the police in attempting to do their job made a big fuck up .
Unfortunately it looks like the police did the latter .
I'm sure they just loved your accent ~;)
It least it shows that they are trying. Obviously they messed up as he was innocent but what he did wasn't really very bright. I think it's more a case of stupid decisions by the man and nervous Policemen.
Some criticised about the 1 life instead of hundreds. It can be easily abused but someone has to make the call and they did trying to save the lives of a carrigefull of passengers 2 weeks after a major attack and a day after another one with suicide bombers.
In all honestly, I don't care if the police's action was understandableShooting a man "Pinned Down" is NOT understandable.
I believe the "Terrorists" are winning the war, if they have installed so much fear in western society, that killing your own is acceptable. "Osama" must laughing his head off at that development. Soon he won't have to use bombs any more, because we be will killing ourselves anyway.
Tribesman
07-25-2005, 01:25
I'm sure they just loved your accent
whataboutyenehei ?
Works both ways doesn't it Shades ~;)
Some criticised about the 1 life instead of hundreds.
True , but I was listening to the same bunch of bollox on Friday don he pub saying that it was the right thing to do , yet they went protesting when the British did in Gibralter
Condemn terrorism , but apply it equally .
Papewaio
07-25-2005, 02:55
Last time I was in Bali I wore a jumper because it was relatively cold after working in the Sumatran jungle and at the Equator in Borneo.
I assume that someone from Brazil even after 3 years would still find the weather rather brisk. Much like seeing Englishmen in Aus who wear shorts all year round while the locals are rugged up in coats.
Also a lot of the pictures show people rugged up too.
I think if someone does a crime they should do the time.
A harder penalty should be for those who attack government officials particularly uniformed police.
A harder penalty still should be in place for government officials particularly police.
The opposite holds true in police states.
This needs to be a very public inquiry not a white wash.
Nor do I take the he was pinned down and the only way to eliminate the threat was to shut off his central nervous system. This type of fear and response is just the type of terror the terrorists are trying to generate.
Hence they the terrorists are winning, while a lot of you are quickly cashing in your freedom for the false sense of security.
Here in Australia they are talking about bringing in an identity card based on these events. How on earth does a photo ID of a person who has no prior record going to stop things like this? False security.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Benjamin Franklin
I totally agree with JAG on this one. This poor guy was probably scared out of his brain.
I also sympathise somewhat with the police, though... Tensions must be at an all-time high, for the younger officers especially...
[QUOTE=kiwitt]Shooting a man "Pinned Down" is NOT understandable.
[QUOTE]
Being pinned down doesn't stop you detonating an explosive with a trigger in your hand does it??
Papewaio
07-25-2005, 08:44
Shooting a man "Pinned Down" is NOT understandable.
Being pinned down doesn't stop you detonating an explosive with a trigger in your hand does it??
IFF he was pinned down it does not absolve the policeman of murder.
If the guy was still running then the policeman should get a medal. If they have him pinned to the ground the same policeman should get charged.
If we are going to change the rules to that of a police state then the terrorists have already won by getting us to change our way of life to one that like them does not respect human life.
The terrorists operate from a center of fear and hatred and disregard for due process and the law. They do not negotiate, they murder. They win when we act in the same manner as them.
We need information from these people so that we can eliminate the group.
Ja'chyra
07-25-2005, 09:15
There's so many high horses around here that I'm suprised some people can still see us on the ground.
Why not try waiting for the inquest before we condemn the policeman??
I'll say it again, unless you know all the details all you're doing is spouting uninformed opinions.
Papewaio
07-25-2005, 09:21
It would make for some really short threads if we started doing that now... ~:cool:
Off to my high horse... :charge:
Pape, you are completely spot on with all you have said, totally right.
Personally, I am still trying to work out exactly why they shot him when they did. They had him pinned down..
The reason thus far? He may have had a bomb'. Well if he had a bomb, why the hell didn't they stop him when he got out his house or while he was in his house, ended it outside a public place like a tube station... Surely it is terrible policing if they believed he had a bomb yet they still allowed him to get on a train.
Either way, stupid and terrible policing and policemen that need to be seriously looked into about their motives and orders, someone seriously messed up and they need to be held to account.
Also I think there is real anger from a majority of people in the country, that a hardworking young man has been victimised by the police like this, while NO terrorist has been brought to justice. What the hell are the police doing?!
Personally, I am still trying to work out exactly why they shot him when they did. They had him pinned down..
Because there was reasonable evidence to suggest he had a bomb, and just because he's pinned down doesn't mean he can't detinate it, he was in the carriage at that point remember?
why the hell didn't they stop him when he got out his house or while he was in his house, ended it outside a public place like a tube station... Surely it is terrible policing if they believed he had a bomb yet they still allowed him to get on a train.
Because they didn't know he had a bomb and couldn't be certain he was up to something until when asked to stop by UNIFORMED police he ran into a crowded carriage.
Also I think there is real anger from a majority of people in the country, that a hardworking young man has been victimised by the police like this, while NO terrorist has been brought to justice. What the hell are the police doing?!
I ask for like the 3rd time Jag, if you were one of thsoe policemen, what would you have done? Let him blow himself and 30 other people up? Or eliminate the threat?
Ser Clegane
07-25-2005, 11:45
Because there was reasonable evidence to suggest he had a bomb
Uhm ... what "evidence"? The fact that he was wearing a coat is not evidence
Because they didn't know he had a bomb
Didn't you just say there was "reasonable evidence" that there was a bomb?
What is it now?
TonkaToys
07-25-2005, 13:36
The policemen involved have been removed from fire-arms duties but not suspended from police work.
The enquiry will be run by the Independent Police Complaints Commission - they normally run these types of investigation.
_Martyr_
07-25-2005, 13:36
Wearing a coat certainly is no evidence that he had a bomb. Refusing to stop on multiple occasions when confronted by armed anti-terror police, running into a subway station, jumping over a ticket barrier, legging it down the escallator and lunging into a crowded train, a day after attempted suicide bombibgs and just two weeks after the deadly 7th July bombings is IMO enough to warrant what the police did. Seriously, he gave the police EVERY reason to believe that he was a suicide bomber. He was living in London for over 3 years, surely by now he must have realised that the Met dont go round like has been suggested certain police forces do in Brazil. He spoke perfect english, and was of course aware of the suicide bombings. He put the police in a position where the only course of action they had was to shoot him dead. Its trerribly sad, but the police made the right call based on what was known at the time. Sadly this turned out to be incorrect, but thats the beauty of hindsight.
If I was going to criticise the Police over this, I would say that they should have confronted him much earlier. Allowing him to enter a bus if he was a suspect is very poor indeed.
Let me ask you something, clear the information out of your head that he didnt infact have a bomb, and all you have heard since this story broke. You are one of the officers in close persuit. You have been informed that a terror suspect wearing a large coat has alluded armed police when directly confronted to stop. You are very aware of the risk of suiced bombers and have been trained on how to take them out. The suspect reaches the ticket barrier, you shout again to stop, he jumps the ticket barrier and continues running down the escallator, you and your colleagues jump over the barrier as well, close behind him. Atr this point, there is little to no doubt in your mind that this guy is a suicide bomber, why would he run away from armed police, even if he was just scared and innocent, surely he wouldnt try head into a tube station!! You are all running at a pace where it would be impossible to get a good clean shot in, without risking a potential detonation. The suspect heads for a train, you are slowly catching up with him. Just as he reaches the doors of the crowded train, he stumbles and you and your colleagues lunge at him taking him down to the ground. There are maybe a hundred people in the crowded carriage, if this guy pulls the bomb chord he would surely kill 20 innocent people, not to mention you and your colleagues. Why would he run, surely he must be a bomber, he ran into a tube station while being chased!! You pull out your automatic pistol, you remember the training you have received based on the experiences the Israelis have made... the only way to completely disarm a suicide bomber is to shut down his central nervous system, you aim for the head. Do you:
A) Unload and neutralise the threat to all those around you.
B) Merely try to pin him down, knowing that this guy could have a pull chord, trigger or anything else in any part of his body, which he could pull very easily even while pinned down and risk the lives of all those around you.
Ser Clegane
07-25-2005, 13:55
To make my view a bit clearer - once the situation unfolded and turned into the chase the policemen had not much of a choice anymore IMHO.
Of course the guy might have had a good reason to wear a coat (obviously he did) and it might indeed be the case that something just "snapped" in him when guys started shouting at him, chasing him with guns in their hands - some people might just panic in such a situation and do something unreasonable, like just trying to break away.
OTOH - the policemen in this situation just did not have the time to consider all possible options and did what they thought would be the best to ensure the safety of other people.
But the point is indeed - that if the police considered him to be a suspect and thought that he might carry a bomb, they should have stopped him as soon as he left the house they were observing.
Perhaps they were hoping that he would lead them to other suspects - so the question is, at which point and why did they decide that they needed to call out to him and to stop him (were the policemen who did this the same who observed him when he left his house)?
This might be a issues for the investigation and we will see what comes out of it.
I do not think that we should quickly pass judgement on the policemen, given the little iformation we have at this stage.
But I also have a problem with statement that imply that there was "evidence" that this guy had a bomb (there wasn't) or that make this poor guy look like somebody who brought this upon himself - just like for the policemen it might have seemd necessary to kill the guy, it might have seemd a good idea for him to run away - who knows if he e.g., noticed any uniformed policemen chasing him?
A.Saturnus
07-25-2005, 15:50
According to what witnesses say, only the three plain cloth policemen were directly behind him. The uniformed men came later. It`s quite possible he didn`t see them, so it`s understandable he ran away.
Of course, we do not know enough facts here, but in my opinion the police had not enough evidence to assume he was dangerous and needed to be killed.
Kagemusha
07-25-2005, 15:55
Its a tragedy.I think police was too hasty on its use of leathal force,but i can understand that they werent in their normal state of mind.It was a tragig error.These things shouldnt happen but they do.My condolences to the killed mans family. :bow:
PyrrhusofEpirus
07-25-2005, 19:35
I'm a policeman and I consider you are a suspect. Can I shoot you dead? Of course if I'm wrong, I will be deeply sorry.
Kagemusha
07-25-2005, 19:39
I'm a policeman and I consider you are a suspect. Can I shoot you dead? Of course if I'm wrong, I will be deeply sorry.
And you will be punished accordingly.If someone has a solution to prevent humans making mistakes,please tell me. :bow:
PyrrhusofEpirus
07-25-2005, 19:44
And you will be punished accordingly.If someone has a solution to prevent humans making mistakes,please tell me. :bow:
Simply, Don't shoot!
Kagemusha
07-25-2005, 19:48
Simply, Don't shoot!
And what if it have been a real bomber?
I'm a policeman and I consider you are a suspect. Can I shoot you dead? Of course if I'm wrong, I will be deeply sorry.
LOL - not even the same scenerio that is being investigated in England.
If as a police officer you believe the individual to be a suspect of a crime, and you inform that individual that he must stop and allow you to speak to him, search him (depending apon the civil rights statues of the nation) and arrest him - and he refuses to comply with that message, and if you believe that the individual who is a suspect is about to committ grevious harm to another individual - then as a police officer you are obligated to protect the other citizen from the suspect.
A review panel will then determine if your actions were merited under the circumstances that you were under at the time of the shooting.
As with these police officers from the reports I am reading - its not just a simple case of we made a mistake - so sorry. They are undergoing the same type of review board that investigates all police shootings to determine if the situation and circumstances warranted the use of deadly force.
Will the police go to jail for their actions if found at fault - most likely not - but they could lose their jobs, they will have to live with their bad decision for the rest of thier lives, etc.
PyrrhusofEpirus
07-25-2005, 20:22
Will the police go to jail for their actions if found at fault - most likely not - but they could lose their jobs, they will have to live with their bad decision for the rest of thier lives, etc. Poor policeman! Imagine that! He will probably loose his job! Were are the good ol' days in wild West, when the sheriff was policeman, judge and executioner simultaneously!
Poor policeman! Imagine that! He will probably loose his job! Were are the good ol' days in wild West, when the sheriff was policeman, judge and executioner simultaneously!
Your knowledge of the United States old west is flawed. The sheriff was not the judge - most often it was someone else like a circuit judge - or the prisoner was transported to a town with a judge, the executioner in some towns was indeed the sheriff and in others there was a circuit executioner that came along with the circuit judge. Your knowledge of history is about as lacking as your understanding of the statement I just made - or the circumstances of why the police shot this individual. At least in my case I ackownledge that I don't know - and am spectulating based upon knowledge of police shooting investigations here in the states.
Keep fooling yourself with your message of hate.
The police have one of the toughest jobs that a civilian can have. They make mistakes, and they suffer the consequences of thier mistakes much worse then you with your hate filled rethoric seem to be able to ackownledge.
Try living with the knowledge that your actions killed another human being that on the surface might have been innocent. You might find it a very hard thing to do.
Lets condemn the police for reacting to a stressful situation before we know all the facts surrounding the events and the circumstances of the shootings.
A great arguemetn on your part. Bah.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.