andrewducker | I just don't care

Entry tags:

bombings,
politics

I just don't care

Police shot a main on the underground a few days ago.

He was not, apparently, a terrorist.

However, according to a BBC News article the following is what occurred:

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

I don't give a damn if he was innocent - if, the week after bombs go off, you vault the barriers, flee from the police and then try to get on a train, I want the police to assume you _are_ carrying a bomb and shoot you repeatedly until you're most definitely not a threat.

Because next time it might well be someone who has one.

Edit: I'd just like to make it clear that my mind is not entirely made up until the results of the enquiry come out. If it turns out they weren't actually police (as some people have said), or didn't tell him to stop, or some other fact comes out, I'm reserving the right to change my mind. I'm currently going on what the BBC is reporting.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

On a larger scale, that's more or less the theory that started the War on Iraq. He looks suspicious, he's refused to obey authorities, and if he's not dangerous right now, he probably will be in the future.

Except that George Bush didn't have to make a split-second decision as to whether to fire 'now' or not.

If they hadn't shot him and a bomb had taken out the Tube station, the response would have been an awful lot worse.

And they can't tell.

What would you have them do?

A loaded question.

I can't tell if that's intended as humour or not :->

I'll assume it is (especially considering the rather cool icon)

Yeah, it's actually meant to be serious, I'd love to see the answer.

and thanks ;)

But Bush's perspective is that if he hadn't taken down Saddam, the consequences would have been much worse.

The problem is, when we start taking aggressive action to stop potential threats, is exactly when we start losing civil liberties. A world where Big Brother monitors every communication and watches every citizen 24/7 is probably going to be a physically safer world. But is it one where we want to live in? A world where every potentially aggressive action results in death would surely be physically safer.

It was to prevent this kind of slide that the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing was adopted. It's much, much safer to say "guilty until proven innocent." In the latter case, a few people will be unjustly sentenced, and the majority will remain safe, whereas in the former, the majority will be threatened because guilty people (who could be murderers, child abusers, or terrorists) are set free.

That being said - I can't say if the policemen were wrong or, if they were wrong, unjustified. Sometimes people can do things that are plainly wrong because the ends are so right - even if they don't justify the means. That's probably really unclear, so I'll give an example. There was a case in Germany where a young boy was kidnapped. The suspected kidnapper was in custody, but he wasn't talking, and time was running out to have any hope of finding the boy alive. So the police chief sent everyone else away, and _tortured_ the accused kidnapper until he confessed and told where the boy was. The boy was found alive.

Now, I don't believe that a civilized society should ever use torture. But in this case, it saved the life of an innocent boy. Does that mean that we, as a society should condone it? My answer is no. And the police chief lost his job and, I believe, even got some time in jail for it.

And I think that was the most just possible outcome of the situation. The chief did something that was wrong, and was punished for it. But I'm glad he did it, and I hope that in his situation, I would have the strength to do the same thing.

Sometimes, it really is a choice of the lesser evil.

So to answer your question, I wasn't there, and I can't say from the little I've heard of the situation, if the police had another choice. But even if they did, and their murder of an innocent man was forgiveable, they should still be punished for it. Even if it was a lesser evil, it was still an evil.

But it still puts them on a level with Bush and his War on Iraq.

I have been trying to avoid this whole issue.. but I am in 100% agreement with you...

This is exactly the reason our police give warning of iminent lead pousening.. He didn't stop, Infact, he did worse and ran for an enclosed place, where you would not be escaping from, unless you are very lucky with the timing of doors and departing trains...

There are many that have said " what would you have done" if 20 or so people with guns all shouting "Armed police, stop" - I'd stop..

and spread out like the bigest defencless Nathan I could muster.. not run, like a scared rabit...

* and breath *

I don't think that we have enough information to "not care" yet.

Particularly considering reports that they actually didn't say "police, stop", and possibly that they weren't in fact police.

The police steatment said they were.. so thats unlikly not to be police, unless you are meaning sas, or mi5 etc, but then, They act on our ground, as police, so I don't think i'm against that..

as for saying they were, all the BBc and sky news, with witness steatments all said they were making the fact they were armed police, very vocal, is enough for me to make my call on it..

If they turn out to be other, then I'll re think.. but on the avalable info, which is kinda likly at this stage of the game, I'm all for my previouse steatment.

Do you have any evidence that the police identified as such or told him to stop?

Because otherwise, we have:

Ordinary person going about their business suddenly finds a man, or several men, drawing a gun on him for no particular reason. Runs away, which admittedly might be a poor choice.

*lol* Totally. I heard it on the rado and felt gloriously evil glee.

Shoot the bastard. Bang bang bang bang bang.

Why was he running in the first place? Dipsh*t.

I do care, rather a lot, I think. I suspect the shooters were SAS in police guise. Now, I know the guy didn't stop when asked to and ran rather than giving up. What I don't quite understand is why it was necessary to shoot him 5 times *after* they had overpowered him and were holding him down.

I's just a bit too uncomfortable not to care, IMO

The only reason to shoot someone who is already down is if they are reaching for a bomb trigger.

I don't know if he was. But it's an option.

I'm going to wait for the outcome of the inquiry...

I'd like to know why they didn't try to stop him before he entered the tube if they suspected him of carrying a bomb. Or at least got near enough to him to have a better idea. If they said they were hoping to track him to co-conspirers that would make sense.

But yes I suspect if I'd been the police I might have acted similarly. A lot of people have said this is a natrual consequence of allowing the police to carry guns. But it's a also a natural consequsance of having bombers who don't mind dying along with their bomb. How *do* you correctly deal with taking into custody someone whom you reasonably suspect will blow you and him up if you got near enough to disarm? Non rhetorical question.

I'd have thought they could pretty sure he was not a threat when he was on the floor and massively outnumbered.

As for refusing to obey police instructions - they've been saying it was plain-clothes police who shot him, so how was he to know?

Anyway... we don't seem to have had the full story yet, so let's see what else turns up...

I'm a bit torn on this one too.

When I first heard it, I thought he'd clearly been carrying something and that the officers had made their identities and wishes clear. In those circumstances, I understand their actions.

Now it seems that wasn't the case and I'm not sure. If a bunch of randoms in a strange city were waving guns around, I'd probably run like hell too.

At the moment, I'm uncertain, but I'm leaning towards their response being disproportionate. Regardless of what comes out of the enquiry, it a tragic mistake and obviously a symptom of the climate we're now living in.

I agree, we need to know what happened first. My bare minimum to make this acceptable is:

They had sufficient reason to suspect him of being about to engage in terrorist activities likely to endanger life.
They acted promptly to apprehend him.
They clearly identified themselves.
They gave him clear instructions which he ignored.
They used only such force as was necessary and proportionate.

We'll see.

If I was confronted by people not in police uniform with guns shouting at me to stop, I might well panic. Especially if I was in a place where terrorists could be anywhere....

When the armed plainclothes police burst onto the train and ordered people to leave, most people froze, rather than leaving the train.

People don't necessarily react the way people shout at them to.

Although I believe in police states as a viable option, so I think the police were too damn cautious by far.

As someone else pointed out, I think it was pretty sloppy of them to let him get into the station, let alone onto the train if they thought he was carrying a bomb...

SOP is to just observe unless you absolutely have to act - you follow suspects to lead you to other suspects, thereby bagging the whole network. If you're close enough to stop someone entering a tube station, you're most likely so close you'll get spotted and give the game away.

This situation obviously had some really bad luck involved.

He probably didn't speak English too well, so may not have understood warnings.
He ran to the one place he shouldn't have run to.
He actually might have vaulted the barrier as a fare-dodger (I haven't seen accounts of him being pursued before this point)
He was an an electrician, so probably had wires about him.
He may have been wearing bulky clothing, suggestive of a suicide bomb-jacket

This is pre-judging, so is inherently uncertain, but it seems events have transpired to put officers in a situation where they had to make the choice 'kill or be killed'. Or rather kill or be killed along with everyone else in the area. It has to be admitted that this choice will have to be made sometimes and will always have the possibility of being wrong.

Reality check - we're not living in a police state. When the authorities believe there is a credible threat to the population, they'll do everything they can to protect us. They don't want to make mistakes as much as we don't want them to make mistakes, but sometimes they have to act without the luxury of sufficient information.

Indeed. If we were living in a police state, this wouldn't be news, and there wouldn't be an angushed public debate it, nor a public enquiry. I pretty much think you have it nailed that there were a lot of reasons why this particular mistake happened, from what we know so far, and it is a tragic mistake, but not that one was outwith the reasonable discretion in extraordinary circumstances of the police involved. We can't demand the police always get it right if they are to protect us in times of crisis; just that they follow procedures that mean they will get it right most-to-nearly-all of the time.

I'm very glad I'm not in the police right now.

My primary problem is that plain-clothed police officers look a whole lot like ordinary citizens and I can see a person of color not wanting to stop for a large group of people who might mean them harm. OTOH, my logic may make less sense in the UK than in the US.

This is actually one of the things that concerns me - the man was Brazillian - I have no idea what a natural response would have been in Brazil...

That's on a par with my thinking. If you're not white and a bunch of burly white guys seem to be following you, what would be your first thought? I don't think it'd be, "Oh, they'll be plain-clothed policemen."

The plain-clothes were the problem, I think.

Yeah, the plain-clothes is mostly what I have a problem with, too. Even being white, if a bunch of scruffily-dressed blokes followed me around for a bit then pulled guns and started shouting, I'd run.

To be perfectly frank, I am far more frightened of police being able to execute someone who runs from them than I am of being blown up on a train. Why?

If I get blown up, the nation surges behind me to catch my killers. It's perceived as such a heinous crime that vast resources are poured into catching the person who may be responsible. If I'm shot by police, that's it. Sorry, we made a mistake. Tough luck. My views are summed up by the quote "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither"....and having a father as paranoid as mine certainly rams it true :).

It doesn't matter if there are surges t catch your killer - your killer is dead, and happy about that fact.

And it's not about executing someone for running from the police - it's about stopping someone who is in all likelihood a bomber from detonating their bomb.

No WMD were found in Iraq and no bomb was found on this guy. One's a good reason for not allowing your government to start wars on suspicion alone, the other for not allowing your police to shoot someone on suspicion alone.

So, you're a police officer. You're tailing someone because they're acting suspiciously when they head towards a possible bomb target. You tell them to stop and they vault the ticket machines and run towards the target.

What do you do? How do you protect the innocent people around them?

But you're not just a police officer - you're a police officer impersonating a member of the public. If you want people to believe you're the police, then dress like the police. Anyone can say they're the police - even those who're bent on beating you up just because you shouldn't be in their bloody country in the first place!

Very true. I'm going to wait to hear the final report, because I've heard everything from people saying they were obviously police to claims they were pulling on ID while in mid-chase.

So you want to shoot everyone on the tube who looks dodgy and runs away from unidentified men with guns? Well, it'd solve the housing problem, I guess.

I didn't say that, and you completely failed to answer the question.

Besides, there are much better ways to render someone unable to blow themselves up without killing them. It's quite easy to do it without them noticing too - and without using devices that inflict massive amounts of pain, which also happened to be banned by EU law (Tasers are classed as electronic torture weapons. If you've ever felt one, you'd agree...). The method range from the low tech - bamboo blowpipe, dart tipped with one of several paralytic agents I could name ([Car||Su]fentinil would work, though it leaves one hell of a headache afterwards, and often makes the patient vomit) - to the high tech, the American PKILL Project that uses a very funky ionising beam to render people unconscious. Can't remember how that works.

And there's always the medium tech- it's dead easy to make someone unable to do anything but cover their ears if you use the right kind of ultrasound....And I won't comment on The Doctor's sonic screwdriver :P.

Bamboo pipes are hardly a wieldy weapon to use on someone who is moving at high speeds in a crowded area.

Tricky enough shot with a handgun, even by experts.

I'd rather live in a country where I was at a small risk of being blown up by a terrorist IF my government's currently pissing people off, than one where I was constantly at risk of being restrained and THEN shot 5 times by plainclothes cops just because I looked a bit suspicious and didn't immediately stop when non-official-looking nutters with guns told me to.

Indeed.

Except in this country, just recently, 52 people were killed by terrorists, whereas one person was unfairly gunned down for being a terrorist suspect.

The odds of being killed for being a terror suspect are thus a suggestive 2% of that of being killed by an actual terrorist.

Which country were you talking about?

That's not how statistics work. There are many, many more policemen with guns and now the right to shoot you than there are active terrorists in Britain.

How many innocent people have to die before it becomes an issue, then? Is it OK as long as it's less than the number that the terrorists blow up?

I'm with you. Although, the US Police took a long time to figure out how to avoid "Shot on suspicion of being black" incidents . Maybe the British police need the same training?

I would assume that someone who wanted to detonate a bomb would not jump over the barriers as that'd draw attention. I'd expect them to buy a ticket. After all they arent going to need to save the money are they?

They jumped the barriers after being ordered to stop by the police.

At least that's how the information I've seen reads.

I fully expect to read tomorrow how he was, in fact, wearing shorts and a t-shirt, attempted to surrender and was then driven over by a tank.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I just don't care

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject